It never fails that approval polls for Congress or Obama pops up here in the FA threads. Personally, I don’t put much stock in them myself. The notion that asking 1000 or so people in a nation of over 300,000,000 strikes me as a narrow sampling at best.
But even more baffling are why those that place such faith in polls – perhaps to give themselves a needed confidence boost to justify their own opinions via the “herd” mentality – don’t bother to explain the glaring contradiction in the very polls they love to quote.
And that is… why do these poll responders supposedly overwhelmingly approve of Obama, when they so overwhelmingly *disapprove* of Congressional spending as per the Obama agenda?
Let’s take, for example, the Stimulus… known as it’s official name, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
For professional consistency in the processes, let’s take a single reputable pollster, Rasmussen Reports, and their Feb 16th analysis of the ARRA.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion stimulus plan passed by Congress will help the economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% believe the plan will hurt and 24% believe it will have little impact.
When Rasmussen breaks down their numbers, the class of America Obama claims to advocate *for*… middle-income America – are more likely to believe the bill will cause more harm than good. Those that hold the most optimism are household incomes below $40K, or above $100K.
It’s also not surprising… since the stimulus grows more government than the private sector… that 49% of government employees are dancing in the streets with joy. That’s because 50% of the responders believe the bill consists primarily of new government spending… and they are correct.
The private sector is split evenly, and investors are the skeptics vs non-investors.
Needless to say, those celebrating “victory” on the talking head circuits for it’s passage were not middle America, but Congress, their official mouthpieces and WH policy wonks. Public opinion didn’t matter to Congress. Just as the bailout passed last fall, despite a majority of unfavorable public sentiment, Congress and a then candidate Barack Obama took a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. Obama was on record saying “Democrats and Republicans in Washington have agreed on an emergency rescue plan that is our best and only way to prevent an economic catastrophe.”
Well, *some* Republicans anyway. And so much for the “catastrophe” that he, to this day, still holds over the nation’s head.
Now we’re facing Obama’s next spending debacle – HASP… his Homeowners Affordability and Stabilization Act. Again, in the now predictable Obama’esque fashion, the PR rolls out strong *far* in advance of the details. And if it’s anything like the stimulus, Congress considers reading the details in the bill optional.
As I pointed out in my Feb 19th analysis of this proposal, it’s an attempt by Congress and the Obama admin to reinflate the housing bubble by preventing housing prices from falling lower. It’s a financial “affirmative action” plan guaranteed not to cure the problem, but postpone it… and at quite an expense to the public and banking industry.
Since one of our largest problems is over valued assets in default, the taxpayers and banking industry funding massive loan rate buy downs to accommodate for loan modifications does nothing to cure the over valued asset problem. And, in fact, since these buy down are akin to a five year “government ARM”, they still lock distressed homeowners into an overvalued mortgage… preventing any kind of a sale other than a short sale down line. To boot, they force a situation where the interest rates cannot be used to control housing and inflation.
Is the public catching on to this latest spending misstep? With the press that Rick Santelli’s public protest is receiving, as well as the increasing bipartisan outcry of “foul” gaining speed, I’d have to say yes. This despite the WH’s attempt to use the bully pulpit via Press Sec’y Gibbs in denouncing Santelli as one who “doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.
Back to a Rasmussen Reports Feb 23rd report on HASP…
Fifty-five percent (55%) of American adults say the federal government would be rewarding bad behavior by providing mortgage subsidies to financially troubled homeowners. Among investors, 65% hold that view.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that, among all adults, just 32% disagree.
Will this negative public opinion stop Obama and an unstoppable Congress? Unlikely. As they’ve already demonstrated, they believe we… the peons of the nation… don’t know what we are talking about. Despite their rhetoric, they don’t give a flying fart about what we think.
But, back to the original subject at hand… the utter insanity of these polls. On one hand, we are constantly reminded of Obama’s popularity in the polls by the faithful. On the other, we have polls with strong disapproval of Congress, this spending… all of which is doing Obama’s bidding PLUS tagging on their own spending wishes to boot.
How can this be reconciled? That’s like saying you hate Ford pickup trucks, but then brag incessantly about your black, shiny F-150 with the flame paint job.
I suggest it’s an electorate, extremely reluctant to give up the “hope” and euphoria of their dreams. But, as many other authors here have pointed out multiple times, they might be catching on… albeit slowly.
This is indicated in the movement in the Obama approval rating. From Rasmussen’s site, a graph of the Presidential Approval Index since the Inauguration. The “strongly approve” is in green, the “strongly disapprove” is the red.
Note that the “hope” and euphoria reigned supreme on that historic day… with 40% “strongly” approving, and only about 12% “strongly” disapproving.
Also note Obama’s approval for that first week has never been higher…
Instead, there is a jagged “strongly” approval rating, but ever slowly working it’s way down the longer he occupies the Oval Office.
Also notice those that “strongly” disapprove is on a steady increase.
A particularly interesting observation… sometime between Feb 16th and 18th, the “approve” was near or at it’s lowest, and the “disapprove” was near or at it’s highest. Coincidently, that was the time the ARRA – aka the “stimulus” – was passed in both Congressional chambers, and waiting for Obama’s road show to sign the bill against the Denver back drop. (BTW, did anyone ever figure out the carbon footprint for that PR stunt??)
These approval polls, when viewed in snapshots, provide a lot of political BS fodder. Yet when you view the true extremes in reality… i.e. disapproval of this composite omnipotent government spending vs love and adoration for the guy heading up the spending spree … they don’t make sense.
Well, they don’t make sense until you see the increasing disapproval on the rise, and the euphoric approval on the decline.
The American public may be a little slow. Afterall, it’s hard to admit you got snookered, and the man of your dreams is turning out to be a political toad. But at least they are *starting* to notice the warts appearing.
It’s been stated by admirers that Obama is a “skillful politician”. I’ll add to that, he is masterfully staged at every public event. As a past worker in the film/TV biz, this glitz stuff doesn’t carry much weight with me. But apparently, there is only so much time that the more easily influenced public can be blinded by Hollywood political flash.
Eventually they figure out that, no matter how good a Ferrari kit car looks, it’s still a Volkswagon engine under the hood.
@Michael in MI:
Michael, that’s all he’s got.
Well, that, and half-truths conveniently twisted to fit his arguments.
We figured out from earlier thread discussions that Dudley only has one song in his jukebox.
He hates Bush.
And brown people.
Did you know that people who want to be free shouldn’t be helped? They should “work for it” themselves while their necks are being crushed under the boot of their particular brutal dictator.
I never would have guessed that if Dudley hadn’t told me.
@blast:
I blame President Bush for his part in this mess, I also fault him for nominating Paulson in the first place. He needed an easy confirmation that would be attractive to the democrats, that’s why we got him.
You may squawk about Malkin, I don’t always like her either, but she did have the information pertaining to Paulson that I was looking for and then some.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/22/why-henry-paulson-must-be-contained/
Bush sending Paulson begging is garbage from the left and you, don’t see a difference. Paulson engineered this fiasco of a plan with no “Plan B,” betraying the Republicans and the President. Dem leadership padded it with another $150 billion of “sweeteners” to get it passed, the rest of the story has been accurately posted causing much fits and spits I see.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100303849.html?sid=ST2008100303976&s_pos=
Michael, another good post, as usual, thanks.
blast, you are the one so rewriting history here. Either that, or you have no pre-2001 memory.
The dynamite was in place with a long fuse… planted in the financial dam before Bush became POTUS. The fuse ran out in the Bush admin. But the Dems were just plain overjoyed to do this spending. It was not the Dems who needed cajoling… as you suggest. It was the GOP.
I will agree that I will be forever pissed at Bush for choosing both Bernanke and Paulson, who talked him into the first bailout. I will then continue my disdain for our corrupt Congress, who … with Dems enthusiastically leading the charge… wrote up not only the first monstrosities last year, but remain busy doing so at a frenetic pace now. And I will also be forever PO’d that Bush did not veto this crap when he had the power. I sure as heck know Obama won’t be exercising that veto pen any time soon.
However if you insist that because the dam blew when Bush was POTUS, it’s all *his* fault, then you must now concede that Obama owns the debt, the economy, and his mistakes free and clear by his planting of yet another IED at the dam’s base of debris.
Now… INRE “nationalization” under Bush, and “nationalization” under Obama. Two different worlds. And remember that when money went to Fannie/Freddie, AIG and sundry others plus the bailout, it was a Dem Congress who was in control of writing just how that was going to work, and how the oversight was to be managed. You may also remember that this was October. Bush knew very well that he and Paulson would not be the ones spending that cash, or overseeing the results.
But that dang speech last night so creeped me out that I plain didn’t have the heart to even blog. Must pinch myself to make sure I haven’t been beamed either into a future Brave New World, or back in the past standing with adoring crowds chanting for despots. I have to wonder what people have for brains when they choose to ignore the words. I swear there is prozac in the nation’s drinking water lately…
i.e. from the speech:
This phrase just so creeps me out I don’t know where to begin. If Obama/Pelosi/Reid aren’t planning on taking title to banks, that’s the only thing separating them from Chavez. And BTW, the only reason the market rallied yesterday with 236 points is because Bernanke assured them that nationalization of banks wasn’t in the cards.
Guess that’s out the window with the above phrasing….
Then, of course, there’s the fate of the auto industry, who’s product line will be decided by Obama’s auto czar… which is now expanded to a “inter-agency task force”… meaning multiple auto czars with the same power. Again, the soaring words that chill my bones, because I know what he means…
He’ll bail out the auto manufacturers, but the price will be handing the reins of control over to the feds. It is they who will decide what will “compete and win”… not the company, the feds.
The hold up on the auto bailout is because he hasn’t picked those auto czars yet. The production mix of vehicles made and that ratio will be decided by the feds… not the free market. Or as the NYTs gave us a taste of the language and power in their Dec 9th story about the auto bailout (as written by the Dem Congress) and czar..
Same power, but they decided not one man had enough credentials to do it all… so they have a full agency lined up now.
Again, with the control over decision making and production by telling them what they cannot do. Does it matter who is the owner on record? This is still nationalization. And yes, Bush signed that bill, but it was created by a Dem Congress with an eye on the future. You cannot separate Congress from Bush. He doesn’t write bills… just says yes or no. The details are up to the elected idiots there, busy spending our cash and limiting our freedoms every day. They see that as their job.
Then, of course, there’s the notion of windfall taxes… a genuine favorite of the Dems and Obama. As they become more desperate for money, since they are unable to cut their spending habits, it will come down to the feds deciding how much these, or other private sector businesses will be allowed to make as profit before the rest is seized by the government.
blast, Bush did alot of domestic stuff and spending I am livid with. But this oppressive hand of the feds is not only growing in hidden legislative language, Obama is now bold enough to flaunt it to our faces… most of whom seem flushed with soma or something. It’s like they hear the sound of his words, but don’t comprehend what he is saying.
Since Obama’s been in office 30 days, I say we’ll find out how much he’s nationalized, and with how much oppression, when we start seeing just how the stimulus is administered. But if even States – desperate for a cash handout themselves – are rejecting the strings attached to some of this money, you can bet there’s a lot of control as a price that we don’t know about yet…. thanks, of course, to our idiot media.
The Libs and the Media may have been sucked in by President Training-Pants, but the markets weren’t fooled by the flowery words and the toothy smiles:
I seem to remember someone predicting that reaction from the market.
Oh yeah, that was me.
Mata, so you are saying that the Bush Administration watched the fuse tick of EIGHT YEARS without doing anything to stop it? Given they controlled Congress for much of that time they had plenty of time to stomp out that fuse, instead… they were gluttons. I am not about Democratic talking points, and have never mentioned this is our arguments before, but keep in mind Pres Clinton (*pukes*) did have a balanced budget and surplus. Yes, yes, I know you will say that was a Republican Congress, but Bush had even more power with his Republican Congress… so what gives?
The fact is the nationalization took place under Bushes watch. We woke up one day and by magic AIG was 80%++ owned by the taxpayers, the same with Fannie/Freddie. The $750 Billion Bailout was passed with both parties… yeah, more support from Dems than Republicans, but even John McCain voted for it, just like President Obama. Bush Administration PUSHED hard for this bailout and originally gave the congress a three page law which was expanded. Lots of “trust me” from the Bush Administration and then they failed ONCE again by not putting strings on the cash. Typical.
The markets are unstable and probably even you Mata could cause the market to change.
(and if memory serves me correctly the markets dropped The fact is the WH came out against what Sen Dodd said, but honestly, some of those banks are so weak they probably will end up being taken over by the FDIC, as is normal when a bank is TOTALLY insolvent. Allowing these banks get so big that they “cannot be allowed to fail” is part of our problem. No business entity should ever have that amount of power over the American people or economy. President Teddy Roosevelt was lionized by his own party for breaking up the trusts and businesses like that. He protected us then and hopefully some of these big behemoths will be chopped up so they no longer threaten our economic security. Our modern Republican party is stale and simplistic. More interested in issues like “Intelligent Design” than intelligent fiscal management. It is not as though we are coming off 8 years of a Democrat Administration.
I guess you missed the failed attempts by Bush and *some* Republicans to correct them from 2003-2005. That they did not succeed is because *all* the Dems refused to correct it, and too many of the so-called conservatives in Congress helped the Dems thwart it. But they did attempt to fix it. It requires Congressional action… you expected Bush to do what exactly?
AIG bailout terms were designed and written by a Dem controlled Congress. That’s why the Treasury Dept is the benefiary of a trust, with 79.9% equity interest… collateral for using the taxpayer’s dough, and rightly so… plus the right to veto the payment of dividends to common and preferred shareholders.
Again, this came into being with a Dem Congress writing the rules and specifics, *all* Dems voting for it, and only *some* Republicans standing with the Dems. But enuf to get it passed.
However it did NOT include additional operational/managerial power. Neither did Fannie/Freddie include additional operational power that is coming into play with the latest stimulus. We’re hard pressed to get the Dem Congress to exercise what oversight they *do* have, fer heavens sake.
Now the special auto bailout? Ugly ugly. Obama’s task-force czars will exercise tremendous day to day operational decisions. Notice, of course one czar wasn’t enough… he’s creating “more jobs” in the government, ya know. Already got a cabinet almost twice the size of previous admins.
Giving cash is one thing. Giving cash in exchange for management over the company is another.
But still you say it’s only Bush…. “under Bush’s watch”, you say. You prefer to ignore the Dem Congress and agenda.
I think I’ve said many times, as well as others, this move by Bush gets the steam pouring from our ears as well. We admit his culpability. You, however, confine the culpability to Bush and conveniently give the Dem a pass. Wrong, and viciously partisan. And, and outright lie to boot.
Yet I do not see equivalent outrage for the speed of spending “under Obama’s watch”. A little consistency from you would be appreciated.
Still with the “only Bush” bit, eh? Paulson gave a DEM CONGRESS a three page POS. A DEM CONGRESS expanded it to over 600+ pages (may have been 800… can’t remember). The Dome heads specifically wrote in there that the power of this, and all decisions, lie in the hands of one Treasury POTUS appointee… they did not change it from the original three page outline. Why? Banking on their power today, I would guess.
That none of the money was accounted for is the fault of those who constructed the bill. No on else’s. Congress constructs the legislation, not a POTUS.
Bush is on the hook with pretty much all of us for not vetoing it. But he’s hardly the architect of bad legislation for wasteful spending. That’s Congress for you. They are all scum, in my book. And I am very bipartisan in my utter disdain and hatred for these career pols.
First, the mega-bank is a Bob Rubin/Bill Clinton creation by relaxed regulations, and forcing banks that did want to merge to adhere to CRA compliance standards. This in case your memory past 2001 is still somewhat foggy.
blast, the simple reality is this. The bailout is compounded by the stimulus. What was ultimately decided by Paulson’s first action was loans in exchange for preferred stock. Remember they gave full authority to that position to do what was deemed best. Paulson bought preferred stock. He did not take over operational management.
Who knows what will be done with the money under Geithner. But I assure you, it’s not likely to be loans with interest, and collateral and stock in exchange for it.
Instead, this Congress, and it’s puppet POTUS, is now moving towards nationalization with “the force of the federal government” (using Obama’s own words last night). And yet, I *still* hear no outrage from you for what is happening “under Obama’s watch” in just 30 days.
Having many private banking institutions may not be a good idea in your mind. But the ugly truth is what is “happening under Obama’s watch” will result in having *bigger* and fewer banks. Indeed, could end up as one… a bank controlled by the feds.
In fact, the feds are planning on going into management of multiple businesses to “protect” us. Heaven help us now… if there’s one entity that’s a managerial loser in the free market, it’s anything run by the federal government.
And don’t even get me started on the big three credit reporting companies… who can make or break everyone’s lives with their scoring.
Quite frankly, I wish we could elimination 95% of every institution that has been created since the New Deal. This monster called federal government grows bigger every year, more complex. It’s so convoluted, no one knows what the heck is really going on from agency to agency, department to department, and committee to committee.
Yet now we’re asked to make even larger commitments to “rescue” all this crap, trading federal control for the loan, refusing to allow toxic assets to return to real values, and adding a ton of pork spending. It is just unbelievable.
I’m glad to be an older broad. I have no desire to hang around and watch this happen thru an extended old age.
Mata, many many times here I have called for a Balanced Budget Amendment. My problem is the Bush loving can do no wrong mentality coupled with people attacking the new Administration before they even took office. We had a week or more of Pres Bush loving, how he kept us safe etc. Are we safe really? Doesn’t the near collapse of our economy mean he FAILED?
YES! The Democrats have a piece of this problem from before… but come on! I bring up the Terri Schievo example of how the Republicans could pull together something in the middle of the night and Bush fly back from Texas to sign a law. Pres Bush has the political capital to spend at that time, and if it was a lit fuse he had a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY to protect us from this calamity. Is blaming some idiot like Barny Frank really going to wash the Bush Administration’s hands of this? Get real. Frank is one in 435 House members and until Jan 07 was in the minority.
That is not totally correct. The Federal Reserve Bank, on Sept 15th stepped in and acquired 79.9% of AIG for $85 Billion, later they tapped an additional $37 Billion from the NY Fed and then the Treasury (the Bush TARP plan) ponied up an additional $40 Billion in Nov 08.
Yes, Democrats were in the majority in passing the TARP, along with many Republicans (including McCain) who voted for it and it was signed into law by Pres Bush who put in motion the plan to begin with. I focus on the Administration since they were at the controls at the time.
First, blast, what I posted on another thread, interceding between you and Aye (pun not intended…. LOL) about mortgage insurance pertains here with AIG.
AIG will continue to lose as long as there is over valued assets in the system. That is their prime job… to cover/insure the banks’ losses. This is going to be an endless cycle until the Obama’economy nuts allow the housing values to deflate naturally. This is not on their agenda.
I have no idea what your “not totally correct” bit is about. What’s your point? Congressional terms on the bailout dictated what was allowable via law for giving AIG loan bucks. That they’ve taken $150 bil to date and… as of a couple of days ago, were back for more is not surprising, as I said.
However that is all part of the original bailout that was restructured, plus some creative bookkeeping.
You seem to want to funnel every unrelated thing and lay it on Bush’s shoulders alone because it happened during the years he sat in the Oval Office. But only the bad stuff, mind you. Can’t recall anything good you ever had to say about the man. Balanced Budget my ass… like that’s going to do any good? There’s no one in Congress or the WH that is that good with numbers. It’s all estimates that are wildly off the market, because the government is so big… *no one* knows what’s going on anymore.
If you want to demand something constructive, how about decreased spending across the board, elimination of worthless projects, no luxury earmarks except for integral land development for growth and infrastructure, and a real clean up of the waste in every department and agency we have.
I’ve always jokingly suggested that we should have a law for Congress that says they can’t pass a new law without taking five off the books. It’s getting downright messy and conflicting every where you turn. But what annoys the devil out of me is that you constantly give Congress a pass on irresponsibility. ALWAYS.
Well stop it! This is not a country run by despots of ultimate power… even the hallowed Obama needs Congress to do what he wants to do.
Therefore you have to hold all those involved responsible to be genuine in your beefs. Otherwise, you’re just acting partisan. And last I remember, you were not a Dem.
Mata, I like you, we disagree about much, but we have to disagree about this whole congress thing. YES, congress is responsible for TONS, but President Bush was our leader, HEAD of STATE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, COMMANDER AND CHIEF. He was not some chump sitting around being the tail wagged by the dog. As President, George W Bush had much power, especially in the timeframe from 2002 to 2005 era. He BLEW IT. I don’t hate the man, or have any such derangement as some might suggest. It is that as President he had singular power to make the difference and failed to do so. Why? Maybe it was political issues, or his sense of role of government etc… but what ever the reason he did not put out the “fuse” as you put it, and there were many times such power could have been exercised. Now the Republican party is in shambles due to his management.
I guess you missed the part of the “unified executive” that the Bush Administration promoted? Frankly now that the economy has blown up, my feeling on what Obama is doing is mute, since I don’t believe much from anyone. Will spending help? Is it a waste of money and totally f-n up the debt situation… who knows for sure. No one has a crystal ball, so it is strictly academic and both sides makes their cases and what not. I for one have always been irritated at deficits. When we went to war in Iraq, we needed to pay of it. Sacrifice was needed, not just a bunch of magnetic yellow ribbons but paying for it! The present generation is lazy with few exceptions of those who put it on the line. Attachment to Iphones, and other BS instead of reality. It is infuriating to me a crisis of this magnitude and what it means to the long term power and prestige of the United States. Who are you more afraid of… China or some people in a desert with boxcutters? Both groups we fund in some way or another. Our national policies on energy and trade along with poor oversight on the economic sector has been abysmal. Yep, Clinton was a big part of that BUT that was 8 years ago… what happened to the Republican Party? Why did they not fix the f-ed up mess from Clinton and regain American’s strength? Instead they continued down a path of unsustainability and now ….. NOW we are going to pay dearly. As Republicans we should be screaming at the top of our lungs on how bad President Bush was. Cleanse ourselves of his legacy and then have some semblance of moral authority to call out the Democrats on their role and how they contributed to the problem and… how some of their policies will not improve our standing. But that never happens in this arena. That is why I do not claim to be Republican any more.
I love this country, I served this country, I am angry at what has happened to her. The knuckle heads who coined the “new American century” and pushed our foreign policy and economy to near ruin are not individuals I respect. It seems Federalist #10 is coming true in spades.
So you always challenge me on what role congress plays. I denounce the former and recent congresses role. Speaker Polosi is the most tone deaf person in government by adding bullshit to the “stimulus bill”. There will be blow back to that in the future, but simultaneously I have not heard the Republican Party offer an alternative that looks at American as a unified organ. It seems to flipped with the Dems of old to be the “states rights” party instead of the America first party.
So in a nut shell, I look to our senior leaders. Clinton, Bush and now Obama. Yep, there are many others, but none have the “bully pulpit” like the President to make things happen or decide not to make things happen. There is much I could explain outside of the public arena where you might understand why I hold such opinions, but alas, comments in blogs need to be kept as they are.