• 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!

Poll: Trump’s performance lags behind even tepid public expectations

Floridafan said:
A majority of Americans say President Trump has not accomplished much during his first nine months in office and they have delivered a report card that is far harsher even than the tepid expectations they set for his tenure when he was sworn into office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

Approaching the first anniversary of his victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, Trump has an approval rating demonstrably lower than any previous chief executive at this point in his presidency over seven decades of polling. Fewer than 4 in 10 Americans — 37 percent — say they approve of the way he is handling his job.

Trump’s approval rating has changed little over the past four months, which have included tumultuous events, from hurricanes to legislative setbacks to indictments in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the role Russia played in the 2016 campaign.

The president’s disapproval rating has reached 59 percent, with 50 percent saying they strongly disapprove of the job he is doing. While little changed since the summer, both represent the worst marks of his presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...&utm_term=.20023bd53753&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
Click to expand...

He has accomplished plenty. It's just not anything you and your ilk like.

I ignore these silly polls of a thousand hand selected libs who claim to speak for all Americans. :yawn:
 
countryboy said:
He has accomplished plenty. It's just not anything you and your ilk like.

I ignore these silly polls of a thousand hand selected libs who claim to speak for all Americans. :yawn:
Click to expand...

Your right, he has accomplished so very much that his approval numbers are at rock bottom. He has accomplished so much that republican congressional leaders tell us that if a tax plan isn't passed, the mid terms will be a total disaster for republicans. He has accomplished so much that not a single piece of major legislation has passed congress.
 
Floridafan said:
Your right, he has accomplished so very much that his approval numbers are at rock bottom. He has accomplished so much that republican congressional leaders tell us that if a tax plan isn't passed, the mid terms will be a total disaster for republicans. He has accomplished so much that not a single piece of major legislation has passed congress.
Click to expand...

My right? What about my right? I don't get it.

His approval numbers have not budged in months. :shrug:

And these are the same "republican congressional leaders" who crafted this POS tax bill. Hmmmmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say they were trying to lose on porpoise.
 
countryboy said:
My right? What about my right? I don't get it.

His approval numbers have not budged in months. :shrug:

And these are the same "republican congressional leaders" who crafted this POS tax bill. Hmmmmm, if I didn't know better, I'd say they were trying to lose on porpoise.
Click to expand...

Sadly for you, his approval numbers have reached a new low, something for your kind to be so proud of. There is one thing that we are in agreement, the Tax bill is terrible.
 
Floridafan said:
Sadly for you, his approval numbers have reached a new low, something for your kind to be so proud of. There is one thing that we are in agreement, the Tax bill is terrible.
Click to expand...

No, his "official" numbers have remained steadily low. No amount of heel clicking will make it any different. And no, not sadly for just me, sadly for all Americans.

My kind? Who are "my kind"? Patriotic Americans? Yes, I agree.

And while we may agree this tax bill is crap, I doubt it is for the same reasons.
 
Floridafan said:
A majority of Americans say President Trump has not accomplished much during his first nine months in office and they have delivered a report card that is far harsher even than the tepid expectations they set for his tenure when he was sworn into office, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News survey.

Approaching the first anniversary of his victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, Trump has an approval rating demonstrably lower than any previous chief executive at this point in his presidency over seven decades of polling. Fewer than 4 in 10 Americans — 37 percent — say they approve of the way he is handling his job.

Trump’s approval rating has changed little over the past four months, which have included tumultuous events, from hurricanes to legislative setbacks to indictments in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into the role Russia played in the 2016 campaign.

The president’s disapproval rating has reached 59 percent, with 50 percent saying they strongly disapprove of the job he is doing. While little changed since the summer, both represent the worst marks of his presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...&utm_term=.20023bd53753&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
Click to expand...

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.
 
Floridafan said:
What exactly do you expect from republican sources- facts?
The economy and corporate America did extremely well under Obama.
Click to expand...

guy39 said:
Did you type that with a straight face?
Click to expand...

Floridafan said:
Please show me exactly where I am wrong!
Click to expand...

Lets start slow
President Obama has so far been the only President to never have a GDP growth of 3%.
The lowest ever job participation rate was under President Obama

FY 2010 - Obama's first budget created a $1.294 trillion deficit.
FY 2011 - This budget contributed $1.3 trillion to the debt.
FY 2012 - The deficit was $1.087 trillion.
FY 2013 - This was the first Obama budget where the deficit, $679 billion, was less than $1 trillion. Thank sequestration, which forced a 10 percent cut in spending.
FY 2014 - The deficit was $485 billion.
FY 2015 - The deficit fell further, to $438 billion.
FY 2016 - The deficit is expected to be $600 billion
FY 2017 - The deficit is projected to be $441 billion.
Click to expand...
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

The Republican Congress forced sequestration which was the catalyst for reducing the deficits and jump starting the economy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
the media. Clearly, it's the media. Time to shut them down. Who needs a free press, anyway?
Click to expand...

I'd prefer an honest, factual and unbiased news media, but that might be too much to ask / hope for with the falling journalistic standards.

Common Sense 1 said:
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.
Click to expand...

Not that the political left or the biased news (political propaganda) media would ever admit or cover in inches or minutes.
 
Last edited:
guy39 said:
Lets start slow
President Obama has so far been the only President to never have a GDP growth of 3%.
The lowest ever job participation rate was under President Obama


https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

The Republican Congress forced sequestration which was the catalyst for reducing the deficits and jump starting the economy.
Click to expand...

Although not to call this sufficient to declare a direct causal effect relationship, but it probably should be further researched to document and prove it out more, but sounds suspiciously plausible that when government reduces spending it gives more 'air' and room to grow to the private economy.
 
countryboy said:
He has accomplished plenty. It's just not anything you and your ilk like.

I ignore these silly polls of a thousand hand selected libs who claim to speak for all Americans. :yawn:
Click to expand...
How's that wall coming along, paid by Mexico?
 
eohrnberger said:
Although not to call this sufficient to declare a direct causal effect relationship, but it probably should be further researched to document and prove it out more, but sounds suspiciously plausible that when government reduces spending it gives more 'air' and room to grow to the private economy.
Click to expand...

Why, because it worked so well in the past?

Government spending is part of GDP. Cut spending and GDP is reduced and the people who provided the products and services that were previously provided, become unemployed. The idea that government spending crowds out private spending is economic malpractice. If it was true, where are the shortages?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Sooo...he still retains the same percentage of support he had which won him the election, despite all the negative spin and lack of coverage for actual accomplishments by the MSM?

41% of Americans didn't bother to even vote during the last election. The remaining 59% were split fairly evenly between Trump and Hillary (about 27% for Trump and 28% for Clinton) with about 4% voting independent.

Now 37% say they approve?

I guess this approval rating actually demonstrates he still has the approval of the people who elected him, as well as a decent percent of those who didn't.

What more does he need? :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Actually Hillary won the popular vote 48-46 with 6% voting third party. Trump's favorability on 7 Nov 2016 stood at 39% favorable, 60% unfavorable. Question 11

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Today Trump's job approval is 37%, disapproval 54%, question 138

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k4rl5ynp42/econTabReport.pdf

So yes, basically he is seen favorably by the same folks who viewed him favorably on election day. Now Trump had to receive the votes from some of those who viewed him unfavorably. Where did those votes come from? They came from voters who viewed both Trump and Hillary Clinton unfavorably. In other words, they held their noses and voted for the candidate they least liked or voted for a third party candidate. Gallup states that 25% of the total electorate viewed both major party candidates in a negative light, unfavorable.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

What I think is those who disapproved or seen Trump in an unfavorable light on election day, still do so today. Some of those for sure voted for Trump that viewed him unfavorably, but that was because Trump was disliked less than Clinton to them. It is also interesting to note that according to CNN exit polls 50% of all those who voted for Trump were anti-Clinton voters. They didn't necessarily vote for Trump because they wanted him to win, they voted for Trump because they wanted Clinton to lose. Any Tom, Dick or Harry probably would have received those anti-Clinton votes.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

This begs the question, if the Democrats had run someone who wasn't as disliked by the electorate as a whole as Hillary, almost as disliked as much as Trump and disliked by independents even more than Trump. 57% of independents disliked Trump on election day vs. 70% of independents who disliked Clinton. Questions 10 and 11 first link. If the Democrats had nominated someone else other than Hillary Clinton, I would wager that Democratic someone else nominee would be sitting in the Oval office today.

Bottom line is that we have whom we have in the White House due directly to the choices and decisions made by the two major parties last year. Quite simple.
 
Perotista said:
Actually Hillary won the popular vote 48-46 with 6% voting third party.

Bottom line is that we have whom we have in the White House due directly to the choices and decisions made by the two major parties last year. Quite simple.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was counting the percentage of ALL Americans eligible to vote at the time of the election. I was not counting only those who had voted. So my numbers reflect that.

Otherwise, carry on.
 
MTAtech said:
Why, because it worked so well in the past?

Government spending is part of GDP. Cut spending and GDP is reduced and the people who provided the products and services that were previously provided, become unemployed. The idea that government spending crowds out private spending is economic malpractice. If it was true, where are the shortages?
Click to expand...

Some would seem to hold the opposite opinion on that.

Key Takeaways


  1. Most government spending has a negative economic impact.
  2. The deficit is not the critical variable. The key is the size of government, not how it is financed.
  3. There is overwhelming evidence that government spending is too high and that America's economy could grow much faster if the burden of government was reduced.
The Impact of Government Spending on Economic Growth | The Heritage Foundation
Daniel Mitchell
Former McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy
Daniel is a former McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy.
Click to expand...

Government Spending Crowds the Private Sector Out and In | NCPA
Jun 26, 2013 - Table I also compares the effects of large versus small increases or cuts in federal spending on private sector spending. ... For the four years in which federal consumption spending rose more than 5 percent of GDP (the average increase was 13.0 percent), private sector spending fell 20.6 percent.

[h=3]Government Spending Shrinks the Private Sector | Debate Club | US ...[/h]https://www.usnews.com/...spending.../government-spending-shrinks-the-private-sect...
Oct 7, 2011 - Both George Bush and Barack Obama implemented stimulus to bolster economic activity. So let's look at the latest attempt to use government ...

So calling it "economic malpractice" seems hardly justified, unless some sort of confirmation bias is at play.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Sooo...he still retains the same percentage of support he had which won him the election, despite all the negative spin and lack of coverage for actual accomplishments by the MSM?

41% of Americans didn't bother to even vote during the last election. The remaining 59% were split fairly evenly between Trump and Hillary (about 27% for Trump and 28% for Clinton) with about 4% voting independent.

Now 37% say they approve?

I guess this approval rating actually demonstrates he still has the approval of the people who elected him, as well as a decent percent of those who didn't.

What more does he need? :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

What are his "many" actual accomplishments? He stuck to the script on at least two speeches?
 
eohrnberger said:
Some would seem to hold the opposite opinion on that.



Government Spending Crowds the Private Sector Out and In | NCPA
Jun 26, 2013 - Table I also compares the effects of large versus small increases or cuts in federal spending on private sector spending. ... For the four years in which federal consumption spending rose more than 5 percent of GDP (the average increase was 13.0 percent), private sector spending fell 20.6 percent.

[h=3]Government Spending Shrinks the Private Sector | Debate Club | US ...[/h]https://www.usnews.com/...spending.../government-spending-shrinks-the-private-sect...
Oct 7, 2011 - Both George Bush and Barack Obama implemented stimulus to bolster economic activity. So let's look at the latest attempt to use government ...

So calling it "economic malpractice" seems hardly justified, unless some sort of confirmation bias is at play.
Click to expand...
That source is pure garbage. They pedal the idea in years that government spending rose more than 5% private spending dropped. Notice that they don’t tell us the years, but it’s clear it was during the depression or during World War II. What they are saying is backwards. They’re saying government spending caused the drop in private spending not as a result of the drop in spending, government responded with stimulus spending. Pure nonsense.

Now, if those years were during the War, private spending would decrease due to shortages. For four years automobiles weren’t manufactured because production was shifted to military trucks, jeeps and aircraft. Consumer goods were rationed.

Under Obama, the use of stimulus during a near depression vindicated Keynesian economics. The recovery in the United States was stronger and faster than in countries that didn’t have stimulus policies.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
That source is pure garbage. They pedal the idea in years that government spending rose more than 5% private spending dropped. Notice that they don’t tell us the years, but it’s clear it was during the depression. What they are saying is backwards. They’re saying government spending caused the drop in private spending not as a result of the drop in spending, government responded with stimulus spending. Pure nonsense.

Under Obama, the use of stimulus during a near depression vindicated Keynesian economics. The recovery in the United States was stronger and faster than in countries that didn’t have stimulus policies.
Click to expand...

So, if I understand your view correctly, you believe that the private sector doesn't matter, that government spending does matter, and the more the better.

This seems like believing that you can tax your way to prosperity, as much as a man can lift himself up by standing in a bucket and pulling on the handles.

So who funds all this government spending? The private sector does through taxation, doesn't it?

Government is overhead. The overhead that the tax payers pay for. Yes, its necessary overhead, but the government should purposefully aim to cost as little as possible, spend every tax payer cent as carefully as possible, extracting the greatest benefit from each cent spent.

Further, the government should regulate and legislate with the lightest of touch possible that is balanced between effectiveness enough, just barely and little more. It should focus itself on what its been chartered to do, and little else.
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
So, if I understand your view correctly, you believe that the private sector doesn't matter, that government spending does matter, and the more the better.

This seems like believing that you can tax your way to prosperity, as much as a man can lift himself up by standing in a bucket and pulling on the handles.

So who funds all this government spending? The private sector does through taxation, doesn't it?

Government is overhead. The overhead that the tax payers pay for. Yes, its necessary overhead, but the government should purposefully aim to cost as little as possible, spend every tax payer cent as carefully as possible, extracting the greatest benefit from each cent spent.
Click to expand...
If that’s what you think I said you got it wrong. Most government spending is transfer payments, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Social Security provides income to seniors so they can consume. Cutting this spending is contractionary.

In a depressed economy, when unemployment is high, government is the consumer of last resort. Spending by government lifts the economy. There are many historical examples. Note that this is under that particular circumstance. Government spending in a boom economy can be inflationary. This is just ECON 101 stuff.
 
MTAtech said:
If that’s what you think I said you got it wrong. Most government spending is transfer payments, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Social Security provides income to seniors so they can consume. Cutting this spending is contractionary.
Click to expand...

True, most of government spending is on those social programs, which are eating the rest of the budget alive, now up to 65%, last that I recall.

In a depressed economy, when unemployment is high, government is the consumer of last resort. Spending by government lifts the economy. There are many historical examples. Note that this is under that particular circumstance. Government spending in a boom economy can be inflationary. This is just ECON 101 stuff.
Click to expand...

Under that particular circumstance, yes. But in good economic times, when its not needed (as much), shouldn't that borrowing during that particular circumstance be paid off in order to be better positioned for the next such circumstance (which inevitably comes as the economy is cyclical). So, no, not on an ongoing and continual basis, should the government always be in the role of "consumer of last resort", and yes, you mentioned that as well, so perhaps we aren't as far apart as either of us imagine?
 
eohrnberger said:
True, most of government spending is on those social programs, which are eating the rest of the budget alive, now up to 65%, last that I recall.
Click to expand...
We disagree on the role of government. I think that programs that help Americans have a better life are good programs to spend money.
eohrnberger said:
Under that particular circumstance, yes. But in good economic times, when its not needed (as much), shouldn't that borrowing during that particular circumstance be paid off in order to be better positioned for the next such circumstance (which inevitably comes as the economy is cyclical). So, no, not on an ongoing and continual basis, should the government always be in the role of "consumer of last resort", and yes, you mentioned that as well, so perhaps we aren't as far apart as either of us imagine?
Click to expand...
In good times, the government should be running surpluses (thanks Maynard). Deficits are down during good times, as there is less pending on unemployment insurance and other safety net programs. The gov't isn't always the consumer of last resort.

However, it what we have currently are Republicans trying to lower taxes that will increase deficits.
 
guy39 said:
Lets start slow
President Obama has so far been the only President to never have a GDP growth of 3%.
The lowest ever job participation rate was under President Obama


https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

The Republican Congress forced sequestration which was the catalyst for reducing the deficits and jump starting the economy.
Click to expand...


Budgets are NOT the Presidents, but those of Congress, a Republican congress. Now spin that
 
eohrnberger said:
I'd prefer an honest, factual and unbiased news media, but that might be too much to ask / hope for with the falling journalistic standards.



Not that the political left or the biased news (political propaganda) media would ever admit or cover in inches or minutes.
Click to expand...

Maybe a show like Alex Jones and his "amazing reputation."
 
MTAtech said:
We disagree on the role of government. I think that programs that help Americans have a better life are good programs to spend money.
Click to expand...

I think the difference may be a question of degrees or expense. I'll admit that I'd much rather have people able to take care of themselves for as much as possible, allowed to make their own decisions as much as possible.

In good times, the government should be running surpluses (thanks Maynard). Deficits are down during good times, as there is less pending on unemployment insurance and other safety net programs. The gov't isn't always the consumer of last resort.

However, it what we have currently are Republicans trying to lower taxes that will increase deficits.
Click to expand...

Perhaps on the short term, yes, in the longer term, according to some analysis that I've seen reported, the growth in the economy more than makes up for the tax cuts and their expense.

I suppose it depends on which analysis you are inclined to agree with.

Problem that I see is that if congress believes that there's additional money in the government's till, seems like they obligated to spend it, and usually on some pretty ridiculous stuff. The research about the shrimp running on a treadmill for instance, and raft of others, all from the government's (i.e. the tax payer's) largess, and frankly foolish spending decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom