Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

AdamT · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
So with those great Obama numbers why is there a net job loss and a declining approval number? LOL, you believe there were over 400,000 jobs created in May 2010? Why not just claim that we have full employment? Numbers confuse you. Your lack of economics understanding and civics is absolutely stunning.

This chart (absent the overlay) was provided by BLS -- your go-to source. Either you believe them or you don't; you can't have it both ways.

The reason for the net job loss is obvious from reading the chart. EVen though we were losing fewer and fewer jobs each month under Obama, we were still losing jobs. If you're in free fall and you pop a parachute, you don't stop immediately. You have to slow the descent before you can stop it.

PzKfW IVe · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
It's so obvious that we have a revenue problem, before the Bush tax cuts we were getting our debt under control. Eliminate ALL the Bush tax cuts and you should see fiscal sanity return.

Unmitigated hooey.
2001-2011, the tax cuts "cost" $1.5-1.7T, or $150-170B yr.

AdamT · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
US Treasury shows over 4 trillion added to the debt since Obama took office and those are the numbers he is responsible for. Good leaders accept responsibility, Obama and liberals can only place blame.

As everyone knows, Obama is not responsible for the spending he inherited. When he took over there was a $1 trillion+ deficit that he couldn't do anything about.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

AdamT said:
This chart (absent the overlay) was provided by BLS -- your go-to source. Either you believe them or you don't; you can't have it both ways.

The reason for the net job loss is obvious from reading the chart. EVen though we were losing fewer and fewer jobs each month under Obama, we were still losing jobs. If you're in free fall and you pop a parachute, you don't stop immediately. You have to slow the descent before you can stop it.

Then post the link and before you do check the description. There weren't 400,000 jobs created in May 2010 and you ought to know that.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

AdamT said:
As everyone knows, Obama is not responsible for the spending he inherited. When he took over there was a $1 trillion+ deficit that he couldn't do anything about.

He is NOT responsible for the DEBT he inherited but he is responsible for the deficits he accrued. Now we can argue how much of the 2009 deficit was Bush's and Obama's but what cannot be argued is the fact taht 2010 and 2011 deficits are all Obama's. You keep ignoring that reality just like you ignore the supplementals that he added to the 2009 budgets.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Your math is wrong because there aren't 153 million income earners, there is a1 53 million labor force, a reduction of about a million since Obama took office.

You're right, there's about 139 million workers. 47% of that is 65 million -- how'd you come up with 90 million?

Conservative said:
As usual you focus on the accuracy of the number instead of the fact that there are millions and millions of income earners not paying any FIT.

I've already addressed that issue. Now the issue is your accuracy.

AdamT · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Then post the link and before you do check the description. There weren't 400,000 jobs created in May 2010 and you ought to know that.

Yes, there were 400,000 jobs created in May 2010 -- actually 431,000 to be exact. Of course the majority of those were for the census, so it wasn't a true reflection of the broader economy.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Spending 800 billion was supposed to solve the problem and now we find out that those so called shovel ready jobs "weren't so shovel ready" according to "your" President so where is your outrage? Yes, Obama is responsible for wasting money and increasing unemployment. He continues to do that today

I'll ask it again, are you blaming Obama for these job losses?

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Losses
2009	133563	132837	132041	131381	130995	130493	130193	129962	129726	129505	129450	129320
Job losses	-820	-726	-796	-660	-386	-502	-300	-231	-236	-221	-55	-130	-5063

AdamT · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
He is NOT responsible for the DEBT he inherited but he is responsible for the deficits he accrued. Now we can argue how much of the 2009 deficit was Bush's and Obama's but what cannot be argued is the fact taht 2010 and 2011 deficits are all Obama's. You keep ignoring that reality just like you ignore the supplementals that he added to the 2009 budgets.

No, he is NOT responsible for spending that was locked in before he took office. Doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
You're right, there's about 139 million workers. 47% of that is 65 million -- how'd you come up with 90 million?

I've already addressed that issue. Now the issue is your accuracy.

25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, 65+25=90

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
US Treasury shows over 4 trillion added to the debt since Obama took office and those are the numbers he is responsible for.

It also shows that $1.3 trillion grew between January 20, 2009 and September 30, 2009. Almost all of which is attributable to Bush's FY2009 budget.

Conservative said:
Good leaders accept responsibility, Obama and liberals can only place blame.

No leader accepts responsibility for the failure of their predecessors.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

AdamT said:
No, he is NOT responsible for spending that was locked in before he took office. Doesn't matter how many times you claim otherwise.

No, nor was Bush responsible for the supplementals that Obama spent or the billions he spent taking over Chrysler/GM. Again as usual, you ignore the responsibility of a leader just like you ignore the past 2 years which Bush had nothing to do with. Obama like all liberals always blame someone else for their own failures.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
It also shows that $1.3 trillion grew between January 20, 2009 and September 30, 2009. Almost all of which is attributable to Bush's FY2009 budget.

No leader accepts responsibility for the failure of their predecessors.

Look, you and I are never going to agree on how much Obama added to the 2009 budget, just like you are never going to show where TARP repayment was applied to the budget so this is a waste of time. Like it or not Obama has had over 4 trillion added to the debt since he took office and Bush had nothing to do with 2010 and 2011 budget deficits which will total 3 trillion dollars.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
Then post the link and before you do check the description. There weren't 400,000 jobs created in May 2010 and you ought to know that.

Though they were temporary jobs, yes, 400,000 payroll jobs were added that month...

Census jobs provide short but welcome opportunity

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Census workers gear up to count us, they are counting themselves lucky to be employed.

This once-a-decade temporary work force is giving a timely boost to the battered job market. Census workers accounted for nearly a third of the jobs added in March, when hiring occurred at the fastest pace in three years.

Over the next two months, another 600,000 to 700,000 Census jobs will be added, putting $10 to $25 an hour into the pockets of some desperate job seekers.

pbrauer · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, 65+25=90

Are you going to just ignore my question?

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
Are you going to just ignore my question?

I believe I answered your question, yes, obama is responsible for many of those lost jobs during 2009 because of the failed stimulus program that didn't cap unemployment at 8%

AdamT · Aug 29, 2011

No one is claiming that Obama isn't responsible for *some* of the '09 deficit. He just isn't responsible for *most* of it.

Let's also not forget that much of Obama's deficits isn't owing to increased spending, but rather to lower revenue as a result of the recession. That accounts for about $250 billion/yr.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
25 million unemployed and under employed Americans, 65+25=90

The U6 number of 25 million you are referencing is comprised of 15 million unemployed and another 10 million underemployed.

So out of your 90 million figure, roughly 15 million have no job -- yet you count those among your complaint of those not paying federal income tax. The other 10 million are employed, but you count those twice; once in the group of workers who pay no FIT and then again in the group of underemployed who pay no FIT.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Though they were temporary jobs, yes, 400,000 payroll jobs were added that month...

Census jobs provide short but welcome opportunity

WASHINGTON (AP) — As Census workers gear up to count us, they are counting themselves lucky to be employed.

This once-a-decade temporary work force is giving a timely boost to the battered job market. Census workers accounted for nearly a third of the jobs added in March, when hiring occurred at the fastest pace in three years.

Over the next two months, another 600,000 to 700,000 Census jobs will be added, putting $10 to $25 an hour into the pockets of some desperate job seekers.

Unemployment by month, notice unemployment May 2010 vs 2009. 14973 vs 14518. Doesn't look like an improvement to me. Then don't get too excited bout the reduction in 2011 because most of that reduction was due to people dropping out of the labor force(discouraged workers) which are still higher than when he took office and his first 4 months in office. Where was the affect of that stimulus program?

2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
The U6 number of 25 million you are referencing is comprised of 15 million unemployed and another 10 million underemployed.

So out of your 90 million figure, roughly 15 million have no job -- yet you count those among your complaint of those not paying federal income tax. The other 10 million are employed, but you count those twice; once in the group of workers who pay no FIT and then again in the group of underemployed who pay no FIT.

Oh, Good Lord, fact, millions and millions of working Americans aren't paying any FIT and millions and millions of unemployed aren't paying full income taxes and millions and millions of under employed Americans aren't paying full income taxes. You add them up and tell me what affect they are having on govt. revenue that you are so concerned about.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

AdamT said:
No one is claiming that Obama isn't responsible for *some* of the '09 deficit. He just isn't responsible for *most* of it.

Let's also not forget that much of Obama's deficits isn't owing to increased spending, but rather to lower revenue as a result of the recession. That accounts for about $250 billion/yr.

I don't care how much of the 2009 deficit Obama is responsible for but I do care about him putting Bush spending on steroids and then generating terrible results. Who is responsible for the 2010-2011 deficits? How much is that and then add whatever it is that you believe Obama contributed to the 2009 deficit.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Conservative said:
just like you are never going to show where TARP repayment was applied to the budget so this is a waste of time.

You're lying again. First, you have to prove the money wasn't applied to the budget. The onus to prove you are right isd on you. It's not my job to prove you right.

Conservative said:
Like it or not Obama has had over 4 trillion added to the debt since he took office and Bush had nothing to do with 2010 and 2011 budget deficits which will total 3 trillion dollars.

Which is about the same as Bush, who also added $3 trillion in two years, only Bush can't blame it on another president who gave him a recession; Bush can only blame his own recession.

Conservative · Aug 29, 2011

AdamT said:
No one is claiming that Obama isn't responsible for *some* of the '09 deficit. He just isn't responsible for *most* of it.

Let's also not forget that much of Obama's deficits isn't owing to increased spending, but rather to lower revenue as a result of the recession. That accounts for about $250 billion/yr.

Today's poll numbers, guess the public just doesn't see what you see

Gallup.Com - Daily News, Polls, Public Opinion on Government, Politics, Economics, Management

BWG · Aug 29, 2011

pbrauer said:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Almost 90% of the Americans who pay no federal income tax are:

Incomes that fall below the standard deduction and personal exemptions - the poorest among us

The exemption for most Social Security benefits - the poorer seniors who worked all their lives (while paying taxes) to make this a better country

Tax benefits aimed at low-income families and children — the working poor with children struggling to make do from paycheck to paycheck

These are the people the Bachman's and Perry's are crying that they want to share the burden, rather than ask for a couple of extra bucks from those who's wealth increased the most over the last decade.

Sheik Yerbuti · Aug 29, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Though they were temporary jobs, yes, 400,000 payroll jobs were added that month...

Conservative said:

Unemployment by month, notice unemployment May 2010 vs 2009. 14973 vs 14518. Doesn't look like an improvement to me. Then don't get too excited bout the reduction in 2011 because most of that reduction was due to people dropping out of the labor force(discouraged workers) which are still higher than when he took office and his first 4 months in office. Where was the affect of that stimulus program?

2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542 13747 13914 14087 13931

Click to expand...

There you go, lying again.

Notive the part of my post I highlighted?

Payroll data.

So why do you dishonestly post household survey data?

Once again, you are caught red-handed, cherry-picking data.