• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

Ikari said:
Same thing happened with Bush when he was in, and nothing changed. This is the teeter-totter of single party rule.
Click to expand...

Yet, at the time during Bush's presidency, you were railing against him...Now you want to dismiss the figures....Why?
 
j-mac said:
Yet, at the time during Bush's presidency, you were railing against him...Now you want to dismiss the figures....Why?
Click to expand...

Nope, I condemn both Bush and Bush II (aka Obama). It's just that nothing is going to come of this. Every iteration of president we ratchet down a little further, making a new low each time. But nothing changes, nothing stops, and the Republicans ain't going to put up anyone better than Obama this next time. The road to hell is slow but steady.
 
Conservative said:
What I see is someone who thinks they are right on every issue when the reality is the actual data proves you wrong. You do think and you do feel, too bad you don't verify those thoughts and the actual results.
Click to expand...

Well, what I think is irrelevant, as what you think I think. However, you have not provided any data to dispute me. That's just a fact.
 
Ikari said:
Nope, I condemn both Bush and Bush II (aka Obama). It's just that nothing is going to come of this. Every iteration of president we ratchet down a little further, making a new low each time. But nothing changes, nothing stops, and the Republicans ain't going to put up anyone better than Obama this next time. The road to hell is slow but steady.
Click to expand...

Ok let me try and be fair...Who would you like to see in the office today?
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, what I think is irrelevant, as what you think I think. However, you have not provided any data to dispute me. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...

Wrong again Joe. If anything Conservative has posted so much data, some on your side of the argument keep telling him he spams it....Another day, another chance to be wrong eh?
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, what I think is irrelevant, as what you think I think. However, you have not provided any data to dispute me. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...

Apparently you then wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. BEA.gov, bls.gov, Treasury provides data that is the best we have and is non partisan. That data makes you look and sound foolish
 
j-mac said:
Ok let me try and be fair...Who would you like to see in the office today?
Click to expand...

I was always a fan of Michael Badnarik. Do you mean between Obama and Bush? They're neigh exactly the same, there is no real difference. I'd rather have had neither.
 
j-mac said:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/14643 AUGUST NBC-WSJ POLL.pdf



We constantly hear in here how Obama is doing such a great job from the progressive members. How when we say that the polls are against him, we are just not taking our information from the right sources, or we don't know how to read the polls....Well, here is a poll from NBC for God's sake....In all areas it seems that American's of ALL stripes are just fed up with this liar in office....

Domestically - 40% approve, 60% disapprove
Foreign policy - 30% approve 70% disapprove
Right track/Wrong track - 22% approve, 71% disapprove.....

etc...

This is clearly a contender, if not the winner of the absolute worst President this country has ever had.
Click to expand...

Though I'm by no means a real fan of Obama, I can't really agree with that last part. It's hard to beat the likes of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan, among some others. But I digress.

It's not surprising news, to me. I think most people disapprove with his domestic policy because it seems we live under the impression that a president has very much to do with it. One could argue Obama has used the executive order to affect domestic policy, and I'm sure that contributed to this disapproval, but even so, not a whole lot going on there for which Congress shouldn't take at least part of the blame as well. As for foreign policy, the problems in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and Israel/Gaza all going on at once sure doesn't do him any favors. While I can appreciate his attempt to be cautious with his foreign policy, it's as if he has been a step behind a lot of the time, and his willingness to be aggressive, if necessary, seems a bit cloudy at times. This is my personal gripe with him more than anything. I don't think he's really the best foreign affairs guy. He steps on my academic territory there, haha.

But yeah, a lot of people are certainly fed up. And I suppose I could count myself among them. Didn't vote for him. Not a big fan.

Can we get a classical realist on the 2016 ballot please?
 
polisciguy said:
Though I'm by no means a real fan of Obama, I can't really agree with that last part. It's hard to beat the likes of Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan, among some others. But I digress.

It's not surprising news, to me. I think most people disapprove with his domestic policy because it seems we live under the impression that a president has very much to do with it. One could argue Obama has used the executive order to affect domestic policy, and I'm sure that contributed to this disapproval, but even so, not a whole lot going on there for which Congress shouldn't take at least part of the blame as well. As for foreign policy, the problems in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and Israel/Gaza all going on at once sure doesn't do him any favors. While I can appreciate his attempt to be cautious with his foreign policy, it's as if he has been a step behind a lot of the time, and his willingness to be aggressive, if necessary, seems a bit cloudy at times. This is my personal gripe with him more than anything. I don't think he's really the best foreign affairs guy. He steps on my academic territory there, haha.

But yeah, a lot of people are certainly fed up. And I suppose I could count myself among them. Didn't vote for him. Not a big fan.

Can we get a classical realist on the 2016 ballot please?
Click to expand...

Right after a near financial collapse, Obama and the Democrats successfully pushed through a new law that GUARANTEED unquantifiable Cost increases on every American Corporation and the majority of Businesses AND consumers years before it was implemented.

Not only did it guarantee higher cost on the people that hire, but it also raised taxes on Capital and dividends.

That led to years of economic stagnation, TRILLIONS in new debt, MIllions more added to the unemployment, welfare, foodstamp and disability lines.

Obama is responsible for the disaster that is ObamaCare.
 
Fenton said:
Right after a near financial collapse, Obama and the Democrats successfully pushed through a new law that GUARANTEED unquantifiable Cost increases on every American Corporation and the majority of Businesses AND consumers years before it was implemented.

Not only did it guarantee higher cost on the people that hire, but it also raised taxes on Capital and dividends.

That led to years of economic stagnation, TRILLIONS in new debt, MIllions more added to the unemployment, welfare, foodstamp and disability lines.

Obama is responsible for the disaster that is ObamaCare.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to disagree with you. I would just add that we can't ignore Congress' role in allowing it to pass in the form that it did. Even the Democrats knew it wasn't what they wanted, but they rushed it through and passed it while they could because they were going to have to hand over control of the House to the Republicans. And that was irresponsible, whether they knew how it would affect the economy or not.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Wrong again Joe. If anything Conservative has posted so much data, some on your side of the argument keep telling him he spams it....Another day, another chance to be wrong eh?
Click to expand...

He posts data that isn't related to the issue, and as such doesn't dispute anyone. I've pointed out many times he doesn't even know what his data actually means. So, no, I'm not wrong on this.
 
Conservative said:
Apparently you then wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. BEA.gov, bls.gov, Treasury provides data that is the best we have and is non partisan. That data makes you look and sound foolish
Click to expand...

I do a fact, and how to read what they actually mean. I can help you if you want. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
I do a fact, and how to read what they actually mean. I can help you if you want. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Oh, please educate me on how to read the data, I look forward to it. We can start with the following

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138451 138599 138752 139309 139247 139148 139179 139427 139393 139111 139030 139266
2011 139287 139422 139655 139622 139653 139409 139524 139904 140154 140335 140747 140836
2012 141677 141943 142079 141963 142257 142432 142272 142204 142947 143369 143233 143212
2013 143384 143464 143393 143676 143919 144075 144285 144179 144270 143485 144443 144586
2014 145224 145266 145742 145669 145814 146221 146352
Click to expand...

Then we can talk about the discouraged workers and whether or not they are counted in the official unemployment numbers and who had the lower discouraged workers PLUS unemployed Bush or Obama?

We can then talk about the debt when Obama took office and what it is now plus what we got for that debt?

We can also talk about GDP growth and average growth by President

I anxiously await you teaching me because obviously as a Conservative I am not nearly as smart as you but am willing to learn
 
Boo Radley said:
I do a fact, and how to read what they actually mean. I can help you if you want. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Wondered if you could give me a time line as to when the education process will begin. I am very anxious and eager to learn. Thanks in advance
 
Conservative said:
Oh, please educate me on how to read the data, I look forward to it. We can start with the following



Then we can talk about the discouraged workers and whether or not they are counted in the official unemployment numbers and who had the lower discouraged workers PLUS unemployed Bush or Obama?

We can then talk about the debt when Obama took office and what it is now plus what we got for that debt?

We can also talk about GDP growth and average growth by President

I anxiously await you teaching me because obviously as a Conservative I am not nearly as smart as you but am willing to learn
Click to expand...

These are bulk numbers and by themselves tell you nothing. The novice often mistakenly thinks that by posting such they cover all bases, but they don't. You will also noticed the jobs started going down under Bush, with tax cuts in place. You will also note that the first part of the Obama presidency was under the Bush budget and not an Obama budget. The numbers also give no clue as to any causes. Only an idiot makes the causal relationship error that the president must be be responsible. But we've been over this before. So write this down, and study it for awhile. For remedial work, go read the conservative link I gave your from Forbes that explained why presidents were not responsible for this type of thing. I've linked it and others for you several times, so just work backwards.
 
Boo Radley said:
These are bulk numbers and by themselves tell you nothing. The novice often mistakenly thinks that by posting such they cover all bases, but they don't. You will also noticed the jobs started going down under Bush, with tax cuts in place. You will also note that the first part of the Obama presidency was under the Bush budget and not an Obama budget. The numbers also give no clue as to any causes. Only an idiot makes the causal relationship error that the president must be be responsible. But we've been over this before. So write this down, and study it for awhile. For remedial work, go read the conservative link I gave your from Forbes that explained why presidents were not responsible for this type of thing. I've linked it and others for you several times, so just work backwards.
Click to expand...

You judge performance based upon numbers. You say they don't tell the whole story? Well tell me the rest of the story? Tell me how you add 7 trillion dollars to the debt and still have the same employment numbers that were there when the recession started?

Yes, the jobs started going down with Bush but prior to the Democrats taking control of the Congress his economy generated 9 million jobs after the recession he inherited and 9/11. The tax cuts went into full effect in July 2003 so how do you expect the same tax cuts to benefit anyone 5 years later? Is that how you operate, get a raise one year and then not another one for 10 years?

Bush didn't have a 2009 budget, he had a proposal that was never passed therefore it was the Obama budget. Show me the signed and approved Bush budget and I will agree with you.

You don't seem to understand leadership at all because you say the Presidents aren't responsible for probably anything. That is so wrong it is absolutely stupid. Leadership is about taking responsibility and working with even your political enemies to get things done. Obama arrogance and smirk isn't conducive to any kind of working relationship nor are his leadership skills.

So far your first lesson taught me that you feel instead of think and that you really don't have anything to offer as a valid argument for your point because the reality is you have no concept as to even how the numbers are generated or what impacted those numbers.
 
Boo Radley said:
These are bulk numbers and by themselves tell you nothing. The novice often mistakenly thinks that by posting such they cover all bases, but they don't. You will also noticed the jobs started going down under Bush, with tax cuts in place. You will also note that the first part of the Obama presidency was under the Bush budget and not an Obama budget. The numbers also give no clue as to any causes. Only an idiot makes the causal relationship error that the president must be be responsible. But we've been over this before. So write this down, and study it for awhile. For remedial work, go read the conservative link I gave your from Forbes that explained why presidents were not responsible for this type of thing. I've linked it and others for you several times, so just work backwards.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you talk numbers with a poster who has demonstrated he does not know when a table is cumulative or not much less the difference between real, chain and nominal.

Honestly, this is kind of like talking astrophysics with Mikey. Just sayin'.
 
Conservative said:
You judge performance based upon numbers. You say they don't tell the whole story? Well tell me the rest of the story? Tell me how you add 7 trillion dollars to the debt and still have the same employment numbers that were there when the recession started?

Yes, the jobs started going down with Bush but prior to the Democrats taking control of the Congress his economy generated 9 million jobs after the recession he inherited and 9/11. The tax cuts went into full effect in July 2003 so how do you expect the same tax cuts to benefit anyone 5 years later? Is that how you operate, get a raise one year and then not another one for 10 years?

Bush didn't have a 2009 budget, he had a proposal that was never passed therefore it was the Obama budget. Show me the signed and approved Bush budget and I will agree with you.

You don't seem to understand leadership at all because you say the Presidents aren't responsible for probably anything. That is so wrong it is absolutely stupid. Leadership is about taking responsibility and working with even your political enemies to get things done. Obama arrogance and smirk isn't conducive to any kind of working relationship nor are his leadership skills.

So far your first lesson taught me that you feel instead of think and that you really don't have anything to offer as a valid argument for your point because the reality is you have no concept as to even how the numbers are generated or what impacted those numbers.
Click to expand...

I have told you the rest of the story. Those numbers reflect things that happened under Bush, and that the economy is not related to either president by and large. I've supported that with links not only to mainstream, but by conservatives. It isn't mere opinion, but the very nature of their job and the limits on their power. They don't control the economy. You need to show factual how they have the kind of control you claim. Your numbers don't do that any more than those numbers that show the economy is better under democrat presidencies. It's the same error made by the other side. But instead of answering the point, you get stuck in a loop of posting the same meaningless data.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have told you the rest of the story. Those numbers reflect things that happened under Bush, and that the economy is not related to either president by and large. I've supported that with links not only to mainstream, but by conservatives. It isn't mere opinion, but the very nature of their job and the limits on their power. They don't control the economy. You need to show factual how they have the kind of control you claim. Your numbers don't do that any more than those numbers that show the economy is better under democrat presidencies. It's the same error made by the other side. But instead of answering the point, you get stuck in a loop of posting the same meaningless data.
Click to expand...

Budgets are yearly, deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative. You don't seem to grasp the concept that economic policy is implemented by the President and it was Obama' economic policy and budget that he so called inherited. Democrats rejected the Bush budget and the Bush economic policies.

Guess I am not going to get educated at all because you offer nothing but your opinion as fact. If you don't understand deficits, the fiscal year of the U.S, Presidential economic policies, the budget, you aren't going to teach anyone anything
 
Conservative said:
Budgets are yearly, deficits are yearly, debt is cumulative. You don't seem to grasp the concept that economic policy is implemented by the President and it was Obama' economic policy and budget that he so called inherited. Democrats rejected the Bush budget and the Bush economic policies.

Guess I am not going to get educated at all because you offer nothing but your opinion as fact. If you don't understand deficits, the fiscal year of the U.S, Presidential economic policies, the budget, you aren't going to teach anyone anything
Click to expand...

Understand all of that. But you should know that budgets are made ahead of time and thus what goes on in any given year is from the year before. This too has been explained to you, and documented. The recession happened under Bush polices, with the Bush tax cuts in place. To be educated you have to actually listen.
 
Boo Radley said:
Understand all of that. But you should know that budgets are made ahead of time and thus what goes on in any given year is from the year before. This too has been explained to you, and documented. The recession happened under Bush polices, with the Bush tax cuts in place. To be educated you have to actually listen.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bush submitted a budget that had a 500 billion dollar deficit but it was rejected by Congress. The fiscal year 2009 budget was signed by Obama and passed in March 2009 making it the Obama budget. Included in that budget was TARP, the Stimulus, the Afghanistan supplemental. TARP was mostly repaid with interest but rather than reduce the debt it was recycled. It is amazing how little you truly understand about 2009 and economic policies. I am still waiting to be taught by you?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, Bush submitted a budget that had a 500 billion dollar deficit but it was rejected by Congress. The fiscal year 2009 budget was signed by Obama and passed in March 2009 making it the Obama budget. Included in that budget was TARP, the Stimulus, the Afghanistan supplemental. TARP was mostly repaid with interest but rather than reduce the debt it was recycled. It is amazing how little you truly understand about 2009 and economic policies. I am still waiting to be taught by you?
Click to expand...

I deal in facts sir:

President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Now that we have figures for the full four years of Obama’s first term, a surprising fact emerges: The economy added more jobs during four years under Obama than it did in the entire eight years under Bush.

Obama’s Numbers (Quarterly Update)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom