Posted on 07/20/2009 1:55:27 AM PDT by Mount Athos
Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Barely more than half approve of the way he is handling unemployment, which now tops 10 percent in 15 states and the District.
The president's overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving. But this is the first time in his presidency that Obama has fallen under 60 percent in Post-ABC polling, and the rating is six percentage points lower than it was a month ago.
Since April, approval of Obama's handling of health care has dropped from 57 percent to 49 percent, with disapproval rising from 29 percent to 44 percent.
Obama's approval rating on his handling of the deficit is down to 43 percent, as independents now tilt toward disapproval (42 percent approve; 48 percent disapprove).
55 percent of Americans put a higher priority on holding the deficit in check than on spending to boost the economy, compared with 40 percent who advocate additional outlays even if it means a sharply greater budget shortfall. This is a big shift from January.
In the new poll, more than six in 10 oppose spending beyond the $787 billion already allocated to boost the economy.
Fifty-six percent are confident that his programs will reap benefits, but that is down from 64 percent in March and from 72 percent just before he took office six months ago.
Approval of Obama's handling of the overall economy stands at 52 percent, with 46 percent disapproving. Last month, 56 percent gave him positive marks on this issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I hate it when FReepers beat around the bush and hide their true feelings.
Keep it real, will ya? ;)
LOL
Is that a bad thing?
“I’m beginning to think that elections for President, House, and Senate should ALL be annual. Multi-year terms were fine before the internet, the telephone, and even the telegraph.”
That’s a really, really good idea.
1. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Take it back to state legislatures to appoint senators to the national congress.
2. Establish a baseline for congressional pay, and give the state legislatures the power to increase congressional pay on an annual basis, with established limits on 1 year, 2 year, 4 year, and 6 year averages. Do not allow legislators to vote on their own pay and perqs.
3. Establish maximum allowable administrative support for congressthings. For members of committees, provide a maximum allowable committee augment.
4. Require congressthings to report as income every dollar that goes to them, whether through congressional pay, speaking fees, "gifts" of goods or of services (maybe a "Gift Czar" to overview assessment of gift value?!), and of campaign donations.
5. Bar any bill before congress from including funds that are not in DIRECT support of that bill (maybe a "Common Sense Czar", since that seems to be lacking).
6. Require any bill before congress to be publicly posted for a minimum of 5 working days before being voted on.
(Oh that's right, 0 already made a promise like that, just as he promised that there would be no bills with earmarks, then that there would only be that ONE bill with earmarks, because it was so d@mned important, then, . . .
7. Limit the federal government to its true purposes, such as protecting the nation, regulating interstate trade, negotiating foreign treaties, etc. Provide each representative with a flat discretionary fund -- after all, each representative is responsible for about the same number of constituents. The representative could use those funds for projects in his or her district that are not the direct responsibility of the federal government ($1 billion would come out to about $2.2 million per representative). Representatives could combine their funds for joint projects that benefit multiple districts, or cross state lines. The representatives would be accountable to the voters for how those funds were spent, and would not have a bottomless well of taxpayer-funded "earmarks" to draw from, to buy voters.
Well, where's the change? This president truly had the opportunity to call on Americans to make sacrifices to make the country a better place. But his promises to NOT do Washington business as usual have resulted in the same tawdry, greedy, grubby, underhanded cr@p that has gone before, if not worse.
The president's overall approval rating remains higher than his marks on particular domestic issues, with 59 percent giving him positive reviews and 37 percent disapproving.It's official. Our country is too stupid to live.
Or perhaps a transition from our REPRESENTATIVE government to a more direct/immediate democratic/voter system?
If only a certain percentage vote to elect our current "representatives", why can't that percentage directly vote for passage/denial of bills?
Can't we also NOT read bills and vote on them as well as those that are now in office?
And therein lies the disconnect. The public view Hussein’s policies with suspicion however he remains personally popular. The tipping point will be when the two get married as one. When the ravages of crap and tax raise the cost of energy and food and socialized medicine takes away their private health insurance people will begin to equate Zero with them because he owns them. These policies were not the invention of G.W. or Karl Rove. He will begin to truly own this mess and will be held accountable at the polls.
He will begin to truly own this mess and will be held accountable at the polls.And the opinion polls will be guarded by the MSM who are in his pocket.
And the voting booth polls will be guarded by the Civilian Security Force (or whatever the f* our Ayatollah-In-Chief is calling it these days).
So those "polls" your banking on will basically be owned by The Messiah and his Minions.
Slipping?
I want the SOB in FREE-FALL
What about asking them whether debt can be solved by more spending? That’s a macroeconomic question and it doesn’t take a PhD to understand it.
Those who think “common people” shouldn’t be included in decisions regarding how their own tax money is spent have demonstrated they lack an understanding of basic moral principles. They need to go home and study.
Your comment suggests you don’t have any credibility regarding the question of who should be asked about macroeconomics.
This would make a great TShirt.
“Approval of Obama’s handling of the overall economy stands at 52 percent”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Uh,Oh, this means 52 percent of those polled still don’t have the brains of a billygoat.
“The less he does, the happier I am.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Some said the best thing about Bill Clinton is that he was content to bask in the glory of the office and not really do much. Obama needs to get himself a companion to keep him busy and quit trying to remake the world in his image.
I never thought anyone could make me think of the Clinton years as the good old days but the O has done it.
[There is nothing he or any other President could have done at this point to change the employment figures.]
That’s not true. Had there been $800 billion in tax cuts to companies who hired people, I guarantee the situation would be better.
Where was the comparison between BO and George Bush at this stage of his presidency? Inquiring minds want to know how he stacks up against recent presidents.
“The President could only create jobs by being even more socialist than he already is.”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You are setting off the crock alarm. No president should try to create jobs, he should get the damned government out of the way and let the people create jobs. There is never any shortage of work to be done, government interference creates unemployment and more government interference won’t help solve a problem that government created.
Socialism in greater or lesser quantities has the same chance of solving economic problems as gasoline has of putting out a forest fire.
Ronald the magnificent was exactly right when he said that the government is not the solution, the government is the problem.
You’re not joking, kiddo.
If I thought for one second that we could round up a “Monica” to take his mind off DESTOYING MY COUNTRY, I’d conduct a fundraiser here (right after our successful FReepathon, of course!).
I’ll go you one better, darling. I’d even take his wife as a substitute!
I could train myself to appreciate pantsuits.
“They shouldn’t be allowed to vote in national elections if they are not paying taxes.”
No representation without taxation. That is the way the Founders originally set up this government, with only land owners having the right to vote. When any bozo freeloader can go vote for a $10 payoff from a Democrat ward boss with a pocket full of “walking around money”, the system is doomed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.