What’s behind Obama poll numbers? The economy
Pollster Mark Blumenthal, writing at the National Journal, takes a look at the declining job-approval numbers for President Obama and identifies the primary cause: “A spate of bad economic news over the last 10 weeks.”
Blumenthal believes the decline is notable but perhaps not as significant as others have claimed. But he also thinks it is likely to continue:
“The pattern in Obama’s job rating also reflects what pollster Mark Mellman describes as “two tendencies fighting each other.” We have a new, personally-popular president facing an economic reality that, barring a quick economic rebound, will drag his numbers down further over the next few months. “Eventually,” said Mellman, “gravity will out.”
In the long run — meaning 2010 and beyond — where Obama’s approval ratings go will depend largely on the direction of the economy.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
DB, Gwinnettian
July 13th, 2009
3:52 pm
“In the long run — meaning 2010 and beyond — where Obama’s approval ratings go will depend largely on the direction of the economy.”
Boy howdy, those pollsters sure are wise.
Frederick Douglass
July 13th, 2009
3:54 pm
This is gonna get ugly, and hate ridden.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
4:03 pm
Can’t wait to see how this is Bush’s fault and also how from others this proves Obama’s a socialist and Americans hate socialism………..
ByteMe
July 13th, 2009
4:07 pm
thomas: you bring the popcorn?
thomas
July 13th, 2009
4:09 pm
got some poppin.
Can’t wait to see those who have not had an original thought in 4 years battle it out with the ones who have not had an original idea in the last 8 or 9.
I call a complete lie will be passed off as truth by 5:15pm.
The field may shock me though.
md
July 13th, 2009
4:12 pm
Funny, the economy took him up and is now taking him down. People have always had a tendency to vote with their wallets, nothing new here.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
4:16 pm
Poll numbers may have to do with the fact deficit for fiscal year just topped 1 trillion. From Oct. til now we have spent in excess of our federal budget $1,000,000,000,000.
Looks like a big number, way different to look at than to say isn’t it.
People are concerned about how many more new programs we can take on, without all of this debt spending starting to have a serious effect on inflation and teh general value of the dollar.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
July 13th, 2009
4:16 pm
I thought is poll numbers were just fine?
Hahahaha, look out below!
RW-(the original)
July 13th, 2009
4:17 pm
I just looked it up and sure enough Mark plays Captain Obvious in the cartoon.
Eddy
July 13th, 2009
4:18 pm
You kno’, we got to stop polling those folks who don’t like him! The numbers would surely improve then. Otherwise the state-run media going to have to stop publishing bad news just to stay even…..more fashion and less facts!
getalife
July 13th, 2009
4:19 pm
Slow news day.
When it hits w’s numbers, he will still get reelected.
Cut me a slice of more gop destuction of our country?
No thanks, I am full.
md
July 13th, 2009
4:22 pm
Be a great time for a top name independent to run, all they would have to do is promise fiscal responsibility and they would have a great chance. Bush and Barry both like the credit card too much.
DB, Gwinnettian
July 13th, 2009
4:24 pm
For a bit of context: Saint Ronnie’s approval numbers hit the mid-30s in Jan. 1983. How’d his re-election bid turn out, again?
Conservatism leads to Paranoia
July 13th, 2009
4:29 pm
His poll ratings will continue to slip as long as the economy declines and it will continue to decline for at least another year in my opinion. Unemployment is still going up, banks are still not lending, people are still losing their homes, the housing market is still dead and consumer buying habits have changed in profound ways.
Is it his fault? Not really but it is now his job to fix it. He’s gotta get the stimulus money into the economy, the banks have got to get the toxic assets off their books(not done yet)and start lending again, the job market and housing market have got to stabilize and consumers have got to gain enough confidence in the evidence of a turnaround to start spending again. At this point his approval ratings will be in the 40’s. GOP will be giddy. No positive GDP growth until third quarter of 2010. By then GM will be looking like they are going to survive, banks will have paid back most if not all of the bailout money, housing market and job market will begin to come back and economy will begin to rise just as campagning begins for 2012.
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
4:30 pm
getalife @ 4:19 pm,
You are right. The sheeple will follow Obama off a cliff.
Jefferson
July 13th, 2009
4:35 pm
You folks that want to throw around the socialist label, why don’t you go call your cops and firefighters “comrad”, or the army or your public librarians or public school teachers and coaches — after all they are funded socially. A little socialism goes a long way, and we’ve been like this for years and its just a buzz word for the pissy children. Dang,you want good road and services but want to throw rocks.
The bank bailouts I could have done without, but that was a buddy helping a buddy.
Ratings are down because people want results, now, instantly.
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
4:40 pm
“the banks have got to get the toxic assets off their books(not done yet)and start lending again”
And as far as I’m concerned they’ve messed that up right from the start.
Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
July 13th, 2009
4:43 pm
Well, well, well, another fine misconception that you have formulated, Jay. About 54% of the Americans wanted, well, a horse of a different colour to become President last fall.
This year, they have seen that Obumbler is all thumbs with two left feet. They have witnessed ideological wasteful spending passed of as an stimulus that, by the way, hasn’t worked. We have seen him and his bride (Ol’ Earl Campbell thighs) parade around the world living the high life like a modern day Marie Antoinette, they have seen him shum nations who have been are friends and snuggle up to rogue leaders, and, when he travels to international summits, rather than holding his chest out in pride at our nation’s many great achievements, he apologizes and acts so submissively toward other foreign leaders that one would presume him to be the focal point of a bukkake movie.
That is why his poll numbers are ditching.
md
July 13th, 2009
4:43 pm
Why would the banks want to do anything when they already know uncle sugar is on standby.
Brad Steel
July 13th, 2009
4:45 pm
I bet his poll numbers will head up with the robust recovery scheduled for 2011/2012 even if republicans try to give credit to Reagan or maybe Palin. Great timing for comeback, huh?
SHAMELESS
July 13th, 2009
4:46 pm
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senior U.S. lawmakers on Monday vowed to overturn a Senate Armed Services Committee plan to build more F-22 fighter jets, calling the spending unworkable amid the Pentagon’s belt-tightening effort.
Carl Levin and John McCain, the top Democrat and Republican, respectively, on the committee, said they will offer an amendment to overturn the committee’s decision to spend $1.75 billion (1.08 billion pounds) for seven more planes made by Lockheed Martin Corp.
The additional F-22 jets were included in the committee’s legislation setting overall defence spending priorities, which is expected to be debated by the Senate most of this week.
Levin and McCain opened debate on the defence authorization bill with a broadside against plans to keep building the F-22 Raptor model beyond the 187 aircraft already in the budget pipeline.
The new planes are opposed by the Obama administration, which has threatened to veto funding.
“I hope that my colleagues understand that a veto is likely if the Congress does not act to end the F-22,” McCain said.
Defence Secretary Robert Gates wants to cut back many of the military’s weapons programs and transition from the F-22 to three models of Lockheed’s Joint Strike Fighter F-35, co-developed with eight countries and built for export.
House and Senate lawmakers in committee have also voted to put extra money towards an alternate engine for the F-35 to be built by a team from General Electric and Rolls-Royce Group. Obama opposes the second engine.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
4:48 pm
Question is How do the banks get those toxic assests off teh books?
Who’s going to buy them, without getting rid of them they will be a drag on economic recovery for some time to come. Will these assests be gone by 2010, or 2012? Who knows.
Have heard through some grape-vines that unemployment will stay around or above 10% until next May or June. Over 50% of stimulus money will not see the economy until 2010 or 2011. If that is the case it does mean trouble for democrat elections.
Also makes one wonder why an economic stimulus package waits to release over half until 2 years after bill was passed.
Disclaimer only playing devil’s advocate, but could his dip in poll numbers are due to the fact the American people have had a chance to read his stimulus bill and grasp what it actually says?
George American
July 13th, 2009
4:49 pm
The reason his numbers are down is because America has realized they have the dumbest Muslin to ever wear funny hat. This economy and country are headed down the toilet and people are getting sick n’ tired. There will be hell to pay.
Redneck Convert
July 13th, 2009
4:49 pm
Well, if this Obama had of just let things alone to start with the economy would be OK. Sure, a few more million people would loose their home and unemployment would be about 30% and maybe we’d be in the Great Depression II but leastwise we wouldn’t owe all that money to China. We wouldn’t of had any money to owe. And all those banks would of went bust and we might of lost alot of money that was in them but leastwise we could start over.
What we needed to start with was another big tax cut. If Obama had of made big tax cuts for rich people and businesses we would be waiting for Trickle Down right now. Instead of watching unemployment go over 9%.
And when you think about it things wasn’t really that bad to start with. I had a job and most Conservatives I know had a job and the only people that didn’t have a job were just a bunch of bums to start with. They would of been out of work anyway.
So I can’t hardly wait till 2012 comes and Sarah and her VP the Rev. Huckabee are on the ballot and we can get some good Conservative guvmint back in power. And put God back in the White House. If we prayed hard enough the economy would turn around and we’d be piling the money up with a bulldozer.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good night everybody.
md
July 13th, 2009
4:50 pm
“I bet his poll numbers will head up with the robust recovery scheduled for 2011/2012″
The fickle masses want it fixed last week, and you think things will be hunky doory if it gets done by 11/12?
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
4:51 pm
Doggone, IMHO the banks are still lending. To a chosen few that is.The banks are not going to lend money to folks that are lower income.The stimulus money should have been given to “we the people” to boost consumer spending. Mayby????
getalife
July 13th, 2009
4:51 pm
Scooter,
Yes, just like the cons did with w.
In 2012, the establishment vs the establishment.
Goldman Sachs will never lose.
Had to take a slice of that action.
ByteMe
July 13th, 2009
4:55 pm
thomas: to take your questions in order:
How do you get rid of a toxic asset? Basically, you either hold it until its real value reveals itself through market forces — something banks, by regulation, aren’t supposed to be able to do with illiquid assets — or you sell it at auction to someone willing to pay for it and then it’s value is really really established and it’s also off the books, so it’s no longer toxic to the bank.
The numbers you want is that nearly 70% of the stimulus money is supposed to be applied to programs that are operating within 18 months and the rest over the following 12-18 months. That was the timeline when the stimulus package was created. Not 5 months as the whiners of the world want to complain now. And the hold-up is that the money is mostly going to state projects and the states have to put the projects out to bid before they can start taking any of the money.
ByteMe
July 13th, 2009
5:00 pm
Scooter: as someone in the market for a new house now, I can tell you that:
- Banks are lending if you have decent credit scores.
- Banks want 20% down with no exceptions, even if you have awesome credit scores.
When we bought the house we’re in now, we got ourselves an 80-10-10 setup in 2004 with almost no documentation of income. Now they want us to provide lots of documentation and 20% cash at closing. They will let us take out a second mortgage later, but we have to come up with 20% cash at closing.
Which explains why the under-$350K houses are still selling and the over $400K housing market is at a complete stand-still.
md
July 13th, 2009
5:00 pm
But the salt marsh mouse community is reporting nearly full employment but the gang members with the removed tattoos haven’t been so lucky.
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
5:05 pm
Hey I’ve got an idea!
If I was running the GOP, like the Manteats in Black (and his scrawny surrogate, The Man of Non-Steele), I’d employ the very tactics that they used in 2006 and 2008.
(What?! Are you SURE?! That sounds impossible! They lost 63 out of 67 races???!!!)
But even more telling perhaps was the WAY they lost.
To wit, never-served “Macaca” Allen loses to decorated combat veteran, Jim Webb.
And in many other cases, old Republican chickenhawks lost seats to young Democratic Iraq & Afghanistan war veterans.
But the chickendorks never saw this sea change. Not then, not now. And have their collective heads so far up certain body cavities, they are still oblivious to a nation so resentful of their deceitful and botched Republican war that the fallout is gonna last a lot longer than they even dare consider. A good decade or more, I suppose.
And so they still blather on about how the pendulum swings back and forth. THAT’S th4e explanation! Yeah, of course! Nothing more.
And the worst of these cretins have NOTHING to cling to but their non-Eastern facing prayers that the Uppity Muslim falls on his face like their Hero of the Texas ANG did. Royally.
Pathetic…
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
5:05 pm
“Doggone, IMHO the banks are still lending”
For me, that isn’t the issue. The issue is the billions and billions of dollars the banks have received, and it has done NOTHING for homeowners. The main problem was “credit default swaps” (which are a form of insurance) based on mortgages that were in serious danger of default. It’s a death spiral…the economy started down, especially when gas prices shot up, people started defaulting on their mortgages, investors got hit with having to pay out for defaults they thought would never happen, and the economy spiraled further down.
What those clowns in Congress ought to have done was pass the “stimulus” bills and then gone to the banks and said “here’s the money, use it to pay off the outstanding mortages on your books” and then set a loan repayment system for the banks.
If they had done that, the banks would have gotten the money anyway, the mortgage owners would have had more money to spend…because their mortgages would no longer be hanging over their heads…and the credit default swaps would not have hit the investors because there would have been no defaulted mortgages. And the banks would still have gotten the money, but they could have started lending it out immediately.
And yes, I realize that would have meant paying off over-priced mortgages…but the government could even have told the banks they would only get the money if they would write off the mortgages at a, say, 10% or 15% or 20% discount…it still would have worked to stop the death spiral of the credit default swaps investors default on THEIR investments, because there would have been no defaulted mortgages. At worst, they might still have been on the hook the discounted part of the mortgages…depends on the terms of their investment contracts.
md
July 13th, 2009
5:08 pm
“20% cash at closing”
And thats the deal breaker considering most that had it took a big hit in the market.
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
5:12 pm
getalife,
I voted for w for his second term because my dad (rest his soul) always told me if I started a fight I needed to finish it.w did’t do that. I was very disappionted.
md
July 13th, 2009
5:12 pm
And now the Commercial market awaits. Bailout #2, 3 ,4 on the way.
Pogo
July 13th, 2009
5:15 pm
Politics aside, what has everyone concerned is that in the face of a global economic collapse the likes of which most of us have ever seen, Obama presses on with his big government/big spending agenda just to make a point. And what is that point? I think that he is arrogant, narcissistic and above all else he wants to see everything he has been taught and he has believed in all of his life come to fruition under his watch. Another words, he is bound to the slavery of his idealogy. He is incapable of any intropsection that would suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, he may be wrong. For that matter, so are a lot of his followers.
getalife
July 13th, 2009
5:19 pm
Scooter,
My Dad (rest his soul) told me to never ever trust a politician or our government.
He was right.
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
5:21 pm
“and above all else he wants to see everything he has been taught and he has believed in all of his life come to fruition under his watch”
Well, why not? That’s what got us into this mess. People following what they were taught and believed, with no regard for the consequences. Ayn Rand and “trickle down” haven’t worked. Time to try something else.
What does this mean?
July 13th, 2009
5:23 pm
“Eventually,” said Mellman, “gravity will out.”
Is gravity going to expose the economy as homosexual? Talk about a fabulous recovery….
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 13th, 2009
5:25 pm
Hey, the last couple threads, has anyone noticed how the libs on this blog have descended into the vulgar name calling and I haven’t?
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 13th, 2009
5:25 pm
Isn’t it about time to ban again?
RealityKing
July 13th, 2009
5:25 pm
$1 Trillion Budget Deficit by June with an 81% to GDP National Debt.
Progressive CHANGE morons dubiously believed in..
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 13th, 2009
5:26 pm
Isn’t it about time to ban me again?
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
5:26 pm
Doggone @ 5:05 pm,
That was a little over my head but it gave me a little more understanding of the problem. Thanks
thomas
July 13th, 2009
5:27 pm
ByteMe,
Thanks I had heard differing figures on the time table for the release. I was going with round about figures, as the administration itself has talked about the money not being out or going out sooner.
I understand the states must bid all of this money out. However would it not have been nice for the administration to think that the money would be needed NOW or not at all. How does money help someone out of work already for 6,9, or 12 months before any help is delivered. They will have either pulled themselves out of the hole, or will be too deep into that hole and the money won’t help.
About the toxic assets, that is exactly what my financial sector brother of mine told me and even tried to explain to me. Only problem is that thier toxic assets are not ones that anyone wants to buy. According to my brother some of these crooks set up assets that will never regain their liquidity, or value. Therefor they are kinda stuck. Won’t this cause the economy to stay on a course downward, since it is the banks and their financial difficulties with lending and real estate that are the main problems of the economy and its recovery.
At least that is what the Obama Administration told us when selling this stimulus.
Hate to say it but looks like we are in for a looong run of slow if any recovery, but that is the thing with the free market, ther have to be bad times for there to be good ones. Kinda how if nothing sad ever happened how would we know happiness.
md
July 13th, 2009
5:28 pm
Neither trickle down nor trickle up will ever work if the work ethic is non-existent.
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 13th, 2009
5:29 pm
Franken: ‘The most experienced Supreme Court nominee in 100 years’…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5yG1Dy5b4A
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
5:31 pm
Pogo uses the word introspection??????????????
Andy, quit crying. Nobody likes a narc…
The economy is a wreck. And the truth be told, has been for a LONG time. You portfolio watching fops just never thought once to pull back the curtains to see what was behind there.
And worse, you trusted immoral idiots like George Walker Bush and DickHead Cheney when they said everything was alright…
RealityKing
July 13th, 2009
5:32 pm
Don’t buy ByteMe yet, the 15% interest rates, caused by our mindless progressive spending machine, are going to crush the housing market again in the next couple of years. Its just a matter of time in the face of our exploding Debt to GDP ratio. See France, Japan..
Pogo
July 13th, 2009
5:32 pm
New York Dolls said it best; “Too much, Too soon”. Unfettered power is the enemy of any state and it corrupts even the most well meaning leaders. The Media and the people that elected Obama didn’t do him any favors when they pretty much made it clear that he walks on water. Absolute power doesn’t work with Republicans and doesn’t work with Democrats. It doesn’t work.
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
5:33 pm
Whiner,
I don’t think anyone should be banned unless they use profanity.Thats just me I guess.
md
July 13th, 2009
5:36 pm
“And worse, you trusted immoral idiots like George Walker Bush and DickHead Cheney when they said everything was alright…”
And Frank, and Dodd, and Wall St and Mainstreet…………..
If you are going to name the culprits, lets get the list started. If anyone believes it was the fault of any one individual or any one party, then they are truly fooling themselves.
I Report (-: You Whine )-:
July 13th, 2009
5:36 pm
scoot- Which definition of profanity do you speak of?
The one applied to me or the one applied to them?
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
5:37 pm
“Neither trickle down nor trickle up will ever work if the work ethic is non-existent”
The work ethic is there…it’s the JOBS that are missing. People lose their jobs because the economy goes south. That meants fewer people with money to buy things. Fewer people buying things mean manufacturers and retail stores don’t need as many employees, so they let some go. That means even fewer people with money to buy things, so manufacturing and retail don’t need as many employees…so they let some go. How often do you want me to repeat that?
That’s why it’s called a “downward spiral”
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
5:39 pm
“If anyone believes it was the fault of any one individual or any one party, then they are truly fooling themselves.”
Right. It was the fault of one economic theory that failed.
jt
July 13th, 2009
5:40 pm
During the next year or two, the MSM defenders of Obama will have a difficult job not unlike John Mitchel did in 1863.
John Mitchel was the editor of the Richmond Virginia Enquirer. A good irishman, his job was to put a positive twist, despite indications to the contrary, on the progress of the war of Northern aggression.
After the battle of Gettysberg, and as he claimed a moral and resounding victory for the glorious cause of the south, it took his newspaper SEVEN WEEKS running NON-STOP to print that one battle’s casualties.
It was like getting a Sunday edition of the AJC every day for seven weeks filled with nothing but a nation’s list of dead citizens.
And he had to put a good face on it and claim victory.
Good luck. It didn’t work then and its not going to work now.
And Obama is the least culpable villian out there.
md
July 13th, 2009
5:41 pm
You need to get out more if you actually think the work ethic is there. People don’t want to do squat anymore. Only as much as they have to to get the check. Shoot, some don’t even think they need to work anymore as uncle sugar will take care of them.
Please…………
Kamchak
July 13th, 2009
5:42 pm
“If we prayed hard enough the economy would turn around…”
And if we pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How hard do we have to pray? Well, hard enough to make water uphill of course.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
5:42 pm
DoggoneGA,
Do you mean capitalism?
What economic theory has worked better in history or will work better in history.
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
5:44 pm
The New York Dolls?
Man, they sûcked. Notwithstanding the Rundgren connection, no-talent caterwauling assclowns.
Tis true, md, Tricky George did not originate the corporate destruction of capitalism. He just orchestrated the final siege.
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
5:45 pm
“You need to get out more if you actually think the work ethic is there”
and you need to get out of your bunker and take a REAL look around.
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
5:47 pm
AmVet, I had a finacial adviser that I had no choice but to trust because I know nothing about the market. Maybe he’s the one that got 40% of my retirement. ????
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
5:48 pm
“Do you mean capitalism?”
No, I mean “trickle down” – and it never will work. Unless, or until, the clowns in charge of the circus realize that money rises upwards, we never will have a good, sound, WORKING economy.
The depression taught us that…too bad too many idiots can’t be bothered to learn the lesson of THAT depression: fewer people working means less money circulating.
Trust me
July 13th, 2009
5:50 pm
The Republicans are out of power in DC and that was the necessary first step toward recovery. Now, we give Obama the same amount of time to fix the economy that Bush was given to destroy it. Nothin’ to it.
Scooter
July 13th, 2009
5:56 pm
Whiner @ 5:36,
There should be no double standard like there is here but Jay is a lib and it’s his blog site.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
5:59 pm
Trust Me,
Does that mean if we all give Obama that time we should expect similar results?
Are you saying then that this economy will be bad for the next 6 or 7 years, then start to get better before the 8th year ends.
Because that was the pattern that Bush took in reverse. Economy was good for first 3/4th of his 2 terms.
DogGoneGA,
I agree with your statements, but do you think that trickle up economics will work any better?
In your opinion are these rich people not greedy, they are in mine, but if they are greedy what is taxing them more going to do other than make them fire or not hire any knew workers. These greedy types are going to make sure they keep their wealth around the same.
Shouldn’t we all be treated equal. Thats what the constitution said every man created equal. Therfore we should all pay the same percentage of our earnings right?
Or are you oppossed to everyone being treated equally?
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
6:07 pm
Scooter, your point is a great one.
Thee must be untold millions of Americans in the same boat.
The American economy is so mind-numbingly complicated, it is beyond Jesus.
That’s how the criminals get away with it.
“Because that was the pattern that Bush took in reverse. Economy was good for first 3/4th of his 2 terms.”
IMHO this is absolutely 110% incorrect, thomas.
It is like saying the train was doing fine for the first three fourths of that mile to the edge of the cliff.
June 15/16, 2002 – A Corporate (Crime) State
by Ralph Nader
What Business Week magazine calls “the corporate crime wave” shows every sign of worsening, as more major corporations scramble to admit massive deception of investors, looting of pension funds, self-enrichment of top executives, restatement of earnings and giant farewell compensations packages to departing bosses who wrecked their companies to further their own megagreed.
“Is Wall Street Corrupt” headlined Business Week? Inside the reporters showed the answer to be yes, yes, yes! The founder of the giant Vanguard Mutual Fund, John C. Bogle, declared “Our capitalistic system is in peril,” and just started a shareholder-rights group with Warren E. Buffett. What communism could not do, the big business bosses are doing to the market system and the financial industry.
We are witnessing the corporate destruction of capitalism in favor of a corporate state. The law can’t save it because the laws are controlled by politicians many of whom are controlled in turn by these same business interests and campaign cash. For every honest Congressman Henry Waxman and Senator Paul Sarbanes, there are scores of Congressional and White House politicians huddling with business lobbyists to stifle prosecutions, reforms and investigations.
The lead culprit is the retiring and shameless Senator Phil Gramm (Rep. Texas) whose wife just resigned from the Enron Board and its audit committee. On May 16th, he met with 30 corporate lobbyists to plan the surrender of Washington, D.C.’s national government against the crookery of Wall Street.
http://www.counterpunch.org/nader0615.html
jt
July 13th, 2009
6:11 pm
md-you commented.
“People don’t want to do squat anymore.”
I believe people WANT to, it just doesn’t pay. If you owe the IRS a few hundred dollars, this balloons to thousands within monthes. Although the federal goverment can not track illegal aliens, they can sure hound a tax payer whereever he goes. Any job a poor person can get will soon be followed by a paycheck garnishment. It works the same way for child-support or any type of parole payments.
Its called a huge goverment backlash.
Until the fed gets off the back of millions of citizens, there will be no answer to the unemployment problem. It isnt just because of the economy.
AmVet-
I agree with “caterwauling assclowns”. That was good.
Trust me
July 13th, 2009
6:13 pm
thomas,
For one thing, I’m saying that I enjoy my hyperbole as much as the next blogger. However, my main points are that the Republican policies of leaving big business to mind their own stores without any oversight and borrowing money in order to fund tax cuts, prescription drugs, ag bill, wars, etc., helped to get this country into this fine mess and it cannot be fixed in a short amount of time. It will be years before things start to pick up. So, sit back and enjoy the ride to recovery. If Republicans were still in charge, the recovery would be even longer and more painful for more people.
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
6:17 pm
“I agree with your statements, but do you think that trickle up economics will work any better?”
Yes
“In your opinion are these rich people not greedy, they are in mine, but if they are greedy what is taxing them more going to do other than make them fire or not hire any knew workers.”
Yes, they are greedy. The rich have always been greedy. The trick it to work that greed to the betterment of society as a whole. They won’t fire workers because of taxes, IF the demand for the goods or services is there to justify having those employees. Check the tax rates of the 1950’s for evidence. As long a “the people” are buying, the rich are going to make sure as much of that money comes their way as possible – so the question is: how do we work that greed to the better advantage of all?
“These greedy types are going to make sure they keep their wealth around the same.”
They will, but they will always be on the lookout for more. The wisest of them know that all investments are expenses…until they begin to pay off. So invest in the “lower orders” and make it possible for them to have money to spend and that money WILL flow upwards. But if you cut off that money at the bottom, then yes, the rich will grab all they can and hang onto it…because the spigot filling the bucket from the bottom is being cut off.
“Shouldn’t we all be treated equal. Thats what the constitution said every man created equal. Therfore we should all pay the same percentage of our earnings right?”
No, we shouldn’t…we should all be treated FAIRLY. The rich get a greater advantage out of the work and spending of the “lower classes”…it’s to society’s and to THEIR advantage to pay a higher percentage of taxes to keep the economy in good working order. I don’t normallY like quoting the Bible…but read the part about the “good steward” and the “bad steward” sometime.
“Or are you oppossed to everyone being treated equally?”
Equality is relative, those who get a greater advantage should – in fairness (not equality) be prepared to contribute more.
jt
July 13th, 2009
6:33 pm
Doggone-
So who determines fairness?
Barney Frank? The IRS?
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
6:40 pm
“So who determines fairness?”
The laws and regulations.
Greg Mendel
July 13th, 2009
6:47 pm
“The sheeple will follow Obama off a cliff.”
Maybe when the sheeple recover from having followed Bush off a cliff.
Bush didn’t replace a manufacturing economy with a service economy that offers no services beyond generating money through Ponzi accounting and trading. Like most people who knew better, he figured it would go on forever. As with Katrina, the condition of the financial levies weren’t sound, and the administration on duty was too busy liberating Iraq to protect us from domestic bankers.
Best to blame Obama, though. Saves coming up with any reasonable alternatives.
jt
July 13th, 2009
6:48 pm
I see.
This coming from someone who quotes “Equality is relative,”.
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
6:53 pm
jt, though much too drug addled a the time to recognize it, that adjective “caterwauling” actually came from David Johnasen himself years later.
Regarding the economic implosion of last September, perhaps the most infuriating part of that entire criminal debacle that BushCo conveniently ignored, may have happened afterwards when that c0cks&ck%r Dick Cheney stared right into the cameras and bleated, “Don’t blame Bush. Nobody saw this coming”.
Sorry for the lingo, but I am still outraged at these gangsters and by the fact they are not in prison…
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
6:59 pm
“This coming from someone who quotes “Equality is relative,”.”
That’s right. Equality is relative. Fairness is too. What is fair for a disabled person is not even needed for an able one. But if, by being more fair…but less equal…you can allow that disabled person to be a contributing member of society, then you have turned an expense into a paying investment.
NRB
July 13th, 2009
7:11 pm
Since when do high taxes “keep the economy going”.
That’s the biggest pile of fly infested crap I’ve ever read. Was that on the back of an Obama shirt?
The government does not control the damn economy. The president cannot “create” jobs. The only impact the government CAN have on the economy is a NEGATIVE one. That includes taxes.
I swear to god. After the last election, and after reading some of the crap that liberals spew about “the rich” and “greed” and blah blah blah…we really need to start a nationalized test in order to qualify to vote.
Idiots.
Stew Day
July 13th, 2009
7:19 pm
Jay
May I be so bold but to beg to differ on what is behind all the poll numbers. Even my favorite die hard liberals are hard pressed to believe you can spend trillions, raise taxes, over regulate and solve much of anything by our government. Obamanomics is nonsensical. Underlying it all– the real poll data–Americans believe that a government for the government by the government is fundamentally against our basic american rights, and constitution. Polls? I think most will be lucky to have any jobs in DC if this arrogance continues.
@@
July 13th, 2009
7:24 pm
What’s behind Obama’s poll numbers, jay?
Absence of mind?
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
7:26 pm
“Since when do high taxes “keep the economy going”.”
What do you call “high” taxes?
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
7:27 pm
“Obamanomics is nonsensical”
The first stimulus bill was passed and signed by Bush. Is that still “Obamanomics”?
NRB
July 13th, 2009
7:29 pm
High taxes would be anything over a flat 10% because that’s how much the government needs to run the operations it was intended to by the founders of our country.
But I’m not going to bother discussing it with a commie because I know you think that other people owe you a living.
I know you want the government to steal from others at gunpoint, on your behalf, and “distribute” it to the losers and leeches of this country.
Seriously, since you feel that way…do us all a favor and just live with your parents forever instead of demanding that Obama steal money from those of us who are productive and know what we’re doing.
Or better yet, move to Cuba where you belong.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
7:32 pm
DoggoneGA,
So you are not for equality, you are for fairness. That’s fine, but why should some of the rich, who were not given these advantages you speak of but instead worked and created their own welth, not be required to pay these increases? You do know that not every rich or wealthy person was born with a silver spoon right?
Some were born into circumstances that were worse than I grew up in or I would assume that you did. I know some of these people, and some are my family.
Me and my brother grew up in the same household, yet he has always been greedy and wanted the world. So he went out and did whatever he could to make it happen. I think he had like 35,000 in student loans. The guys worht about 4.4 million now. I can assure you that he was not given too many privladges. He went to public schools, had to work jobs through high school and college. So exactly what does he have to make up for? Is he making up for being born with an exceptional work ethic.
What parts of the United States Constitution, and/or Bill of Rights do you agree with, as we have seen that you do not believe in equality?
Any opportunity that one wants is out there, it all depends on how bad or what they are willing to give up in order to obtain it.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
7:38 pm
AmVet,
Why only mention Bush and Cheney though? From all you have read they are the only 2 to blame for this in your opinion?
I thought our economy was much stronger than to allow “2 gangsters” to run it into the ground.
So none in congress, nothing to do with the private sector?
Never knew we were in a dictatorship and COngress was obligated to agree with everything the President said?
Didn’t Barney Frank have a quote similar to the one you mentioned about Cheney? Except Frank wasn’t looking out for his friends. He was making sure his sex pal would not be stresed out and unable to perform. So Barney Frank told a similar lie, except he was even more specific in his assertion?
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
7:40 pm
“but why should some of the rich, who were not given these advantages you speak of but instead worked and created their own welth, not be required to pay these increases”
Because their start doesn’t matter…it’s what they have gotten FROM the economy that makes it an advantage to them to contribute to that economy.
“What parts of the United States Constitution, and/or Bill of Rights do you agree with, as we have seen that you do not believe in equality?”
We’re talking economics, not judgement. Equality under the law is not the same thing as equality under the circumstances. But I’m not talking here about forcing the rich to support the idle. I’m talking about giving them an opportunity to contribute in relation to what they have received, so that others can have a chance to contribute…which WILL flow upwards to the rich and pay them back, with interest.
“Any opportunity that one wants is out there, it all depends on how bad or what they are willing to give up in order to obtain it”
That’s right…and if the rich will give up some of their material riches to help raise up the bottom of society, they WILL see the results in increased riches…because the TRUE “fountain” of wealth is in the money spent by those who are NOT materially rich.
Trickle down has been proven a failure. Time to try something else…flow upwards. But to get the updward flow, just like in a water pump, you have to prime the pump first.
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
7:43 pm
“Never knew we were in a dictatorship and COngress was obligated to agree with everything the President said?”
And vice versa. How many bills did Bush actually veto in 8 years?
Get Real
July 13th, 2009
7:44 pm
Sarah Palin couldn’t even turn the Titanic around in 6 months for you yahoos. Judge him after a year and then you’ll have no qualms from me.
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
7:44 pm
“Why only mention Bush and Cheney though? From all you have read they are the only 2 to blame for this in your opinion?”
thomas:
“Tis true, md, Tricky George did not originate the corporate destruction of capitalism. He just orchestrated the final siege.”
“The only impact the government CAN have on the economy is a NEGATIVE one. That includes taxes…we really need to start a nationalized test in order to qualify to vote.”
The ONLY impact???
Don’t know about being smart enough to vote, but clearly not likely to pass a ninth grade civics test…
NRB
July 13th, 2009
7:47 pm
Doggone, since you’re pretending to know anything about economics, care to explain how high taxes give anyone else a “head start”? Care to explain how the government stealing even more money can somehow “prime the pump”?
Rich people are rich because they understand how money works, how to run a business, and have a certain mindset.
Poor people are poor because of bad habits and laziness.
Giving a “poor” person a “head start” in your words (a handout in mine) would do absolutely nothing.
The government cannot regulate the outcome of anything.
If high taxes are so fantastic for the economy, care to explain why all the states with the highest tax rates are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, while low tax states are stable and doing fine?
thomas
July 13th, 2009
7:49 pm
I am sorry Doggone, I do not see how that will motivate any type of a consistant work ethic to advance ones place. Why not just charge us each an equal percentage of our income?
The poor don’t have to pay as much and the rich get to keep what they earn.
You make it seem as if ALL of teh rich are robbing people or that this money was just given to them. They worked their butts off for it. So why should they have to give anyone else a leg up to help them make it.
Why can’t this be done through non-profit organizations?
Perfect example if our President and Vice president had maybe given more of their VAST incomes to charity, they themselves could have saved a couple of families. But they would rather FORCE others to pay the money to them so they and their friends cn spend it how they wish.
Since you think giving money to the poor works to help them out of their despair, then why did the programs of Well fare have to be reformed because too many were getting comfy on the money.
You act as if there is not a group of the population very content to not work and be given things.
That includes those who are rich and poor. But if I am correct your belief is we should give money to only the poor ones who do not want to work?
That seems fair, equal, even ……………not really.
NRB
July 13th, 2009
7:51 pm
You’ll note that anytime we have a recession, the armchair economists come out of the woodwork preaching communism and the idiotic “trickle up” theory.
Yeah because a loser who cannot even keep a job at McDonalds is really going to be creating jobs and amassing wealth….if only the government can give him a huge injection of someone else’s cash. Yep.
Amvet: stfu, traitor.
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
7:53 pm
“we really need to start a nationalized test in order to qualify to vote”
And, of COURSE, the only people who will pass and be allowed to vote are those who agree with YOUR opinions. Isn’t that how a poll test REALLY works?
FinnMcCool
July 13th, 2009
7:54 pm
Obama needs to get him a midget. A mini-me.
Didn’t that work for Kid Rock?
DoggoneGA
July 13th, 2009
7:56 pm
“Doggone, since you’re pretending to know anything about economics, care to explain how high taxes give anyone else a “head start”?”
No, I don’t care to…because “high” taxes is YOUR term, not mine. Everything else you’ve said is based on the voices you hear in your head and not on anything *I* have said. They are YOUR terms, YOU explain them.
thomas
July 13th, 2009
7:57 pm
AmVet,
I hope you were not attributing that part about a voting test to me?
I am a heartless conservative but dam…….
Doggone, I am not able to tell you an accurate account of how many veto’s Bush dolled out. My point was to show that he was not the only one to blame, as some posters here have mentioned.
Please you 2 do not confuse me with a full Bush supporter. Their are things as an American that I am greatful to as their is with every president of my lifetime. Just as their are things I have been the harshest critic of in his policies and decisions, again as there has been in every president of my life. I do my very best to be equal to Dem. Rep. Ind. or whatever party. I am interested in the betterment of America as a whole, not any individual and certainly not any party.
NRB
July 13th, 2009
7:58 pm
“the only people who will pass and be allowed to vote are those who agree with YOUR opinions.”
No. The way that economics actually works isn’t my opinion, it’s fact.
People like you need to be removed from the system because all you do is vote in anyone that promises a freebie or handout.
The end result is increased government theft of private wealth, more leeches flooding the country for a free life, and presidents like Obama.
BruiserND
July 13th, 2009
8:01 pm
Obama had Buffett as an advisor before the election.
Obama worked on Wall Street in derivatives after Columbia and before going to Chicago to begin a career as a community organizer .
He was acutely aware in Mid September that the system was in meltdown before he was elected.
He gets no pity, not one inch of slack on the econmomy.
He knew we were going to be destroyed by banksters and aided and abetted them.
The streets will run with blood in a civil war.
Obama engineered it.
AmVet
July 13th, 2009
8:01 pm
no thomas, you are reasoned and reasonable. Obviously well read and a decent man.
i.e. the polar opposite of that POS NRB.
Hysterical too, that of everyone here that dipstick posits for some sort of intellectual barrier for franchise.
jt
July 13th, 2009
8:02 pm
jt Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This is racist. Although I am a proud red-neck, I stand up for poor black Atlanta youth.
The MAN is trying to keep us ALL down.
Doggone- You have a nice dreamworld, but you put too much faith into corrupt politicians. You should strive for a system that keeps their evil influence to a minimum.
Trust me
July 13th, 2009
8:03 pm
NRB,
Care to provide any evidence to support any of your claims. You sure sound like you are just upset that the Republicans are no longer in power. Is that part of the reason why you are apparently so upset.