Your approval of the President so far

[lockmat]

Pew had their poll, now let's see what HAIF thinks. Although it may turn into another typical political thread, that is not my intention. My main intention is just to see where HAIFers stand so far. I'm not even asking for an opinion on why or why not you approve or disapprove. But of course, as long as you abide by Ed's rules, it's a free country and speak out if you so choose. Feel free to remain quiet as well.

_____________

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval ratings among Republicans (27%).

By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views of George W. Bush's job performance in April 2001, a few months into his first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36% approved of Bush's job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27% job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today.

The partisan gap in Bill Clinton's early days was also substantially smaller than what Obama faces, largely because Democrats were less enthusiastic about Clinton. In early April 1993, 71% of Democrats approved of Clinton's job performance, which is 17 points lower than Obama's current job approval among Democrats. Republican ratings of Clinton at that point (26%) are comparable to their current ratings of Obama today (27%).

The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. In fact, a majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Carter's job performance in late March 1977, and a majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Nixon's performance at a comparable point in his first term.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized...proval-historic

[HtownWxBoy]

I very much approve of Obama's job so far. I never expected him to be perfect, but overall I am happy with what I am seeing. He definitely comes across as much more of a "leader" than Bush did. I saw his recent trip to Europe as very successful... the world seems to be uniting behind us much more than it did with Bush in office. Conservatives, of course, will say "who cares what the rest of the world thinks"... well, we will accomplish much more with friends than we will with enemies. Attitudes across the Middle East also appear to be changing which can only lead to good things (including getting moderate Muslims to support us in fighting Muslim extremists)... Conservatives don't like Muslims so they, of course, will view this as a bad thing. He wants to bring troops home from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan which is what we should be doing... a great decision from a great Commander in Chief. Another thing I like about Obama... he speaks the truth. Conservatives don't like the truth a lot of the times, but oh well... like they say, the truth hurts sometimes. While in Europe he spoke of how America has sometimes been "arrogant"... well, America has... but he made a point to also point out how some European's attitudes about America and Americans was just plain wrong... and even though America makes mistakes they should remember the huge sacrifices America has made in the past to help many of these Nations. Conservatives prefer to see things as... "America is perfect and does nothing wrong and everyone else sucks". Yea, we are going to accomplish tons with that attitude.

Oh... and as for the partisan gap... Conservatives hate Obama. He's a Democrat whose popularity here and around the world is astonishing. Nothing he does or will do will please them so I don't expect them to start supporting him. There's a reason they are now called "The Party of No". It also doesn't help that he's an African American who actually respects those of other faiths, including Muslims. Conservatives want America to be the Christian version of Saudi Arabia or Iran. Conservatives also care more about their party than America... there goal for the next few years is not going to be helping to improve America, but to get a Republican elected in 2012.

Overall I approve of how Obama is handling the Presidency... I look forward to seeing him in action the next few years... I see good things for this great Nation.

[Geoff8201]

While I mostly approve of Obama's job so far, seeing this poll, and those Pew poll numbers really confirms something for me... that the division between the two parties is growing, and from what I've heard from both sides over the last 10 years, turning to blatant hatred.

To me it almost feels as if there are two teams, lets say the Red Team and the Blue Team (simple opposing colors, not Republican v. Democrat, not Bloods v. Crips or however you may associate it, just which color do you visually like more). Both teams are trying to accomplish pretty much the same thing in different ways. People choose the team they want to be on. They become loyal to their team, and cynical, and even hateful of the opposing team, just cause that's how it works. You cheer your team on, boo the other side. In a sports example a fan for one of the teams would always say the Ref made the right call if its in your team's favor and boo the hell out of him if it's not... even if its the right call all the way. This is fine for sports, but if it fine for the fate of our nation?

People hate to take a position and be wrong. They hate to pick a side and lose. Some members of both sides have clearly demonstrated how much they hate losing.

This two party system isn't different. Thank the lord if you remain undeceided, or just don't care about party labels.

Conservatives also care more about their party than America... there goal for the next few years is not going to be helping to improve America, but to get a Republican elected in 2012.

Can you say it's all that different on the otherside as well?

Theoretically, what if Obama is doing a perfect job, everything is going just right and he's working hard to get things as they should be... actions that would warrent a 100% rating from everyone (just in theory now, honestly imagine it) would Rush Limbaugh have nice things to say about Obama? Hell no. Would Republicans up his approval ratings to 100%? Nope, more likely it'd go up a little but most would rate him as they do now and hate his success more because there is a D next to his name and not an R.

[HtownWxBoy]

Can you say it's all that different on the otherside as well?

Conservatives are much worse... just my opinion.

[jb4647]

I very much approve of Obama's job so far. I never expected him to be perfect, but overall I am happy with what I am seeing. He definitely comes across as much more of a "leader" than Bush did. I saw his recent trip to Europe as very successful... the world seems to be uniting behind us much more than it did with Bush in office. Conservatives, of course, will say "who cares what the rest of the world thinks"... well, we will accomplish much more with friends than we will with enemies. Attitudes across the Middle East also appear to be changing which can only lead to good things (including getting moderate Muslims to support us in fighting Muslim extremists)... Conservatives don't like Muslims so they, of course, will view this as a bad thing. He wants to bring troops home from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan which is what we should be doing... a great decision from a great Commander in Chief. Another thing I like about Obama... he speaks the truth. Conservatives don't like the truth a lot of the times, but oh well... like they say, the truth hurts sometimes. While in Europe he spoke of how America has sometimes been "arrogant"... well, America has... but he made a point to also point out how some European's attitudes about America and Americans was just plain wrong... and even though America makes mistakes they should remember the huge sacrifices America has made in the past to help many of these Nations. Conservatives prefer to see things as... "America is perfect and does nothing wrong and everyone else sucks". Yea, we are going to accomplish tons with that attitude.

Oh... and as for the partisan gap... Conservatives hate Obama. He's a Democrat whose popularity here and around the world is astonishing. Nothing he does or will do will please them so I don't expect them to start supporting him. There's a reason they are now called "The Party of No". It also doesn't help that he's an African American who actually respects those of other faiths, including Muslims. Conservatives want America to be the Christian version of Saudi Arabia or Iran. Conservatives also care more about their party than America... there goal for the next few years is not going to be helping to improve America, but to get a Republican elected in 2012.

Overall I approve of how Obama is handling the Presidency... I look forward to seeing him in action the next few years... I see good things for this great Nation.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Now only if the Democrats would grow a pair and stop compromising all the time. Don't they understand that they are Charlie Brown and the GOP is Lucy with the football.

You want health care reform? RAM it thru! That's what they did the past eight years.

You want gays to have the right to serve our country in the armed forces? RAM it thru!

You want card check? RAM it thru!

Remember Dems, the other side is playing for keeps. They will take your "compromise" and stick it in your back like a shive everytime! It's what they do and how they get things done!

Grow a pair!

[Marksmu]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Now only if the Democrats would grow a pair and stop compromising all the time. Don't they understand that they are Charlie Brown and the GOP is Lucy with the football.

You want health care reform? RAM it thru! That's what they did the past eight years.

You want gays to have the right to serve our country in the armed forces? RAM it thru!

You want card check? RAM it thru!

Remember Dems, the other side is playing for keeps. They will take your "compromise" and stick it in your back like a shive everytime! It's what they do and how they get things done!

Grow a pair!

Obama will prove to be the biggest mistake in this country's history.

He will bankrupt the country - completely convert us to socialism - and start so many government programs that cannot be unwound that we fail.

A government run by a less intelligent, non tax paying, majority, will destroy the working, heavily taxed minority. When the power of the mob seeking something for nothing overcomes the rule of law our form of government will fail. We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy. It is a sad day that we have peons who are clapping as we watch our country begin its descent into mediocrity in the name of Socialism.

If you really think the government is smart enough or for that matter organized enough to handle important business tasks goto any government workplace or office and try to get something done in one trip - they are all jokes.

Just remember the government DOES NOT MAKE ANYTHING - only redistributes other peoples possessions and earnings. When they come for you and your things, you will only have yourself to blame.

[lockmat]

You want health care reform? RAM it thru! That's what they did the past eight years.

You want gays to have the right to serve our country in the armed forces? RAM it thru!

You want card check? RAM it thru!

I thought that's exactly what they're doing?

[RedScare]

It is a sad day that we have peons who are clapping as we watch our country begin its ascent into mediocrity in the name of Socialism.

The unintentional irony in this statement has me laughing so hard I almost peed my pants.

[KinkaidAlum]

The unintentional irony in this statement has me laughing so hard I almost peed my pants.

That is hilarious. So, I guess Peruna's point is we have bottomed out and our next stop is mediocrity?

[Marksmu]

The unintentional irony in this statement has me laughing so hard I almost peed my pants.

dang spell checkers - you get so reliant upon them. It does not change the message.

[RedScare]

dang spell checkers - you get so reliant upon them. It does not change the message.

That you subliminally believe that Obama is an improvement over the last 8 years? I wholeheartedly agree.

[sarahiki]

Obama will prove to be the biggest mistake in this country's history.

He will bankrupt the country - completely convert us to socialism - and start so many government programs that cannot be unwound that we fail.

A government run by a less intelligent, non tax paying, majority, will destroy the working, heavily taxed minority. When the power of the mob seeking something for nothing overcomes the rule of law our form of government will fail. We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy. It is a sad day that we have peons who are clapping as we watch our country begin its descent into mediocrity in the name of Socialism.

If you really think the government is smart enough or for that matter organized enough to handle important business tasks goto any government workplace or office and try to get something done in one trip - they are all jokes.

Just remember the government DOES NOT MAKE ANYTHING - only redistributes other peoples possessions and earnings. When they come for you and your things, you will only have yourself to blame.

There's a lot in your statement that makes absolutely no sense to me, but this phrase in particular had me wondering. How is it that you see the government being run by a less intelligent, non-tax-paying majority? If someone is running the government, they are working, and therefore paying taxes. Or is there a secret cabal of stupid, unemployed people actually running the goverment? If so, they are probably not so stupid. Plus, it is clear that whether or not you agree with his policies, Obama is far more intelligent President than the last one, again making me wonder about this "less intelligent" comment.

I also suspect that you are equating rich with smart. In some cases this is surely true... someone smart might know better how to make money. But not all smart people dedicate themselves to getting rich. I am thinking of myself as an example. So I must take exception to that argument.

Now, as for this ascent or descent into Socialism, that has been addressed on this board too many times already.

[RedScare]

Actually, Sarah, I find this statement far more nonsensical...

We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy.

Not a single law was changed in the last election. The only thing that changed is the representatives in our republic. Peruna's choice clearly did not win, prompting this absolutely false statement...as if his opinion is determinant of the form of our government. If the GOP candidate had won under the exact same rules, he surely would believe that the republic had been saved. It makes me wonder just what they are teaching up there in Dallas.

One last point I'll make. For 8 years, conservatives laughed when people expressed alarm at the expansion of presidential powers. Now that a Democrat is in office, I can't help but be reminded of the phrase, "kharma's a delicate flower". If Peruna and his neo-con friends do not like the way our government is run today, he should have done something about it in the years 2001-2008.

[rsb320]

The unintentional irony in this statement has me laughing so hard I almost peed my pants.

He said RAM it.

Allowing Cuba visits for family members is another subject about to be RAMMED.

[Jeebus]

Conservatives are much worse... just my opinion.

That's in the eye of the beholder. I would rather sit through 100 conservative "Tea-parties" than one liberal "protest-rally". When conservatives protest, they generally tend to do it in one spot. They tend to be more civil, keeping to mostly loud talking. They don't seem to be into marching up and down the streets, causing near-riots, and using civil disobedience as a medium to project their message. In fact, I can't honestly tell what most liberal protest-rallies are even about, because many times the people there don't even know what they're protesting.

I would be far more compelled to listen to liberals if they protested like conservatives. I'm pretty sure most mature adults would also.

Obama will prove to be the biggest mistake in this country's history.

He will bankrupt the country - completely convert us to socialism - and start so many government programs that cannot be unwound that we fail.

A government run by a less intelligent, non tax paying, majority, will destroy the working, heavily taxed minority. When the power of the mob seeking something for nothing overcomes the rule of law our form of government will fail. We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy. It is a sad day that we have peons who are clapping as we watch our country begin its descent into mediocrity in the name of Socialism.

Well, you just took conservatives back a full notch. Thanks. When you make such polarizing statements, you only scare away any potential audience you could have to heed your message. Turn off the talk radio until you know how to listen responsibly.

[sarahiki]

That's in the eye of the beholder. I would rather sit through 100 conservative "Tea-parties" than one liberal "protest-rally". When conservatives protest, they generally tend to do it in one spot. They tend to be more civil, keeping to mostly loud talking. They don't seem to be into marching up and down the streets, causing near-riots, and using civil disobedience as a medium to project their message. In fact, I can't honestly tell what most liberal protest-rallies are even about, because many times the people there don't even know what they're protesting.

I would be far more compelled to listen to liberals if they protested like conservatives. I'm pretty sure most mature adults would also.

Well, you just took conservatives back a full notch. Thanks. When you make such polarizing statements, you only scare away any potential audience you could have to heed your message. Turn off the talk radio until you know how to listen responsibly.

Do you mean, like, at the Sarah Palin campaign events when people would shout "Kill him!" about Obama? Yeah, that's civil.

[Jax]

We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy.

Isn't a constitutional republic just a type of democracy where we elect our leaders but they are still supposed to be bound by certain rules written out in a constitution?

We're a democratic republic as opposed to a republic like a non-democratic republic ruled by a dictator, or the People's Republic of China (which may have some elements of democracy but only one party and that's getting us off topic).

All "republic" means is that we're not a monarchy, right?

The terms democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

So how are we any less of a constitutional republic than we were under Bush?

[Geoff8201]

Conservatives are much worse... just my opinion.

And I can share that opinion. An example that comes to mind is back in 2000/Early 2001 It was most all Democrats going "Holy crap, We're *bleeped* now." And the basic talk was that Bush, based on his policies, was simply going to fail. Just a prediction that for the most part came true. In 2008/2009 It is a significant number of Republicans HOPING Obama will fail. The President fails, it's pretty likely the country will fail. You can believe he will fail all you want, but hoping for it, is something else. Neither side is graceful is defeat anymore... Although the only thing ironic about that statement is the most graceful Republican defeated was the one who was actually running for president. Heh.

[Jeebus]

Do you mean, like, at the Sarah Palin campaign events when people would shout "Kill him!" about Obama? Yeah, that's civil.

You're absolutely right. The election brought out the worst in both parties.

[TheNiche]

I don't much approve of his actions thus far. Aside from crappy, crappy budgeting, it is his communication style. In speaking, he does not lay out any kind of details backing up his plans. He is extremely vague. And that is a big problem. Households and firms need to know what's going on, whether they like what he's doing or not.

[Gooch]

The terms democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

In terms of the construction of The Constitution they certainly are. Prevailing thought at the time of the Constitution's ratification was a fear that the US would be a democracy. In fact, great pains were taken in crafting the Constitution to ensure that public passions exercised by a "tyranny of the majority" did not capture the government. Their hope was the US would never evolve into a 'majority rule' government. They envisioned many factions. So many that no single faction could dominate. In arguing for ratification Hamilton/Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51:

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. ... In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

The founding fathers also feared that a democratic government would lack stability. Take for example Federalist Paper No. 49.

In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability. If it be true that all governments rest on opinion, it is no less true that the strength of opinion in each individual, and its practical influence on his conduct, depend much on the number which he supposes to have entertained the same opinion.

The danger of disturbing the public tranquillity by interesting too strongly the public passions, is a still more serious objection against a frequent reference of constitutional questions to the decision of the whole society.

Marksmu said:

We were supposed to be republic and we have become a democracy.

Intersting.Though not one of the founding fathers, Tocqueville described how how the American republic's devolution into democracy saying...

Moreover, democracy not only lacks that soundness of judgment which is necessary to select men really deserving of their confidence, but often have not the desire or the inclination to find them out. It cannot be denied that democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy in the human heart; not so much because they afford to everyone the means of rising to the same level with others as because those means perpetually disappoint the persons who employ them. Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy.

To bring this back to topic; Tocqueville's quote above sounds a lot like the the Obama presidency. He's justified taxing the rich based on envy. And applied that envy to villify corporate execs. I'm in the middle of reading Tocqueville. How he envisions the end of American government/society/culture is pretty creepy because it has many analogs to the current adminsitration's policies. Analogs existed when he wrote it too! I don't think it's the end of the world, were diving off a cliff of socialism. But it is discomforting.

I'm also not comfortable with the justification of the president for a mandate because "I won". He seems very determined to get a pound of flesh because he doesn't like the way the previous administration ran over its opposition. I understand that feelings. But two wrongs don't make a right. I thought he was going to be above that sort of revenge-based politics.

[ihop]

To bring this back to topic; Tocqueville's quote above sounds a lot like the the Obama presidency. He's justified taxing the rich based on envy.

That's an interesting interpretation

[RedScare]

That's an interesting interpretation

Intersting, perhaps. Correct? Not by a long shot. The US tax system has been in effect for a century. The form of progressive taxation was implemented a century ago. Obama has not changed anything, and has not proposed changes. He has merely proposed letting the Bush tx cuts expire without making them permanent. To ascribe 100 years of US tax policy to Obama's envy is absolute ridiculousness, and the kind of stretch that has garnered Obama's opponents such derision.

But, then, I haven't heard much logic by desparate opponents of Obama recently. I guess claiming that he wants to raise your taxes because he is envious is nowhere near the worst.

[Gooch]

Intersting, perhaps. Correct? Not by a long shot. The US tax system has been in effect for a century. The form of progressive taxation was implemented a century ago. Obama has not changed anything, and has not proposed changes. He has merely proposed letting the Bush tx cuts expire without making them permanent. To ascribe 100 years of US tax policy to Obama's envy is absolute ridiculousness, and the kind of stretch that has garnered Obama's opponents such derision.

If someone pays more, it's an increase. The only sunset provision I can think of ever recall expiring is the assault weapons ban. By your logic we could revert back to the >90% max top marginal rates of mid-50's and it wouldn't be an increase. That would just be going back and removing the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan tax cuts.

As an example of his use of envy, I'll supply the following exerpt from Obama's press conference 24 MAR 09 in reference to reducing the deduction for charitable contribution, emphasis mine:

It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.

...

They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.

In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.

So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years.

It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.

Any politician with a populist platform will by nature play to economic envy. Its the only way it works.

[RedScare]

Your highlighted text did not describe envy. It describe a "realistic way to raise revenue", i.e., from those who can afford to pay, as opposed to those who cannot. Considering that the Obamas are now members of the group he believes should pay those higher taxes, I do not see his stance as envy. However, if you feel the need to stick with 'envy' as the reason for progressive taxation, then I suppose I can stick with 'selfish ingrates' as the reason that the wealthy oppose it.

Obama also points out that the wealthy have benefitted enormously from US policies over the years, and that it is only fair that they pay their share of taxes. I have pointed out in the past that the wealthy benefit more from US policies and spending than the poor, and therefore should pay their fair share. There are far too many rational and logical reasons for progressive tax policies to feel the need to resort to 'envy' as a justification.

[Jax]

Is Marksmu advocating an American dictatorship?

I thought Republicans hated dictators.

I guess they wouldn't mind a Republican dictator though.

[Gooch]

Considering that the Obamas are now members of the group he believes should pay those higher taxes, I do not see his stance as envy.

I do not see it as Obama's personal envy. I don't give two squirts what his personal feelings are/aren't. It's his pandering to the envy and hatred for the rich that much of the population has. That's what I have a problem with. I'm from Louisiana. I've seen a lot of populist governors come-and-go. And the state's poorer for it.

therefore should pay their fair share.

Define fair. (It's a rhetorical question)

There are far too many rational and logical reasons for progressive tax policies to feel the need to resort to 'envy' as a justification.

Absolutely. 90% of the population couldn't afford a 'flat-tax' at the current revenue levels. But where do you draw the line? Why not try another way. Isn't this administration all about change? Here's an idea. It would minimize the minimize the number of overly rich, stimulate the economy by putting money held by the wealthy into circulation, and it's automatically progressive. Tax people on their net income, just like we do on businesses. Instead of the gross. At the end of the year the poor have nothing left = no tax. The high-income earners enjoy the fruits of their success by spending it - stimulating the economy - or pay massive taxes if they hold onto it out of excessive greed.

[RedScare]

That's what I have a problem with.

I am quite sure that you have bigger issues with the president than an imagined hatred of the wealthy. At least I would hope so.

Hint on your 'idea'. We already tax on net income. Google 'tax deductions'.

[Gooch]

I am quite sure that you have bigger issues with the president than an imagined hatred of the wealthy. At least I would hope so.

Yeah. Plenty to cause pause in this and previous administration. I guess I don't like any of them!

We already tax on net income. Google 'tax deductions'.

Sort of. This year's personal exemption + standard deduction is $9350 for me (single). I couldn't live on that, though some certainly do.

[RedScare]

Sort of. This year's personal exemption + standard deduction is $9350 for me (single). I couldn't live on that, though some certainly do.

I was thinking more along the lines of my mortgage interest deduction, my property tax deduction, my IRA deduction, EIC credits, sales tax deductions, business expenses, etc., etc., etc. When taken together, in fact, the myriad deductions allow the wealthy to pay a lower percentage of income in taxes on average than the middle class. Since you are concerned about the unfairness of progressive tax rates, I wonder if you consider so many deductions allowing the wealthy to pay less tax as a percentage is unfair to the lower income individuals?

Richest 400 Americans Pay Only 17% In Taxes