American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Eight months into his Presidency, Barack Obama retains considerable political strength, according to a new New York Times / CBS News poll.

At 56% , his approval is strong compared with recent presidents. At this point in his first term Obama's job approval is higher than Reagan's (53%) and Clinton's (43%) (The Bush rating was skewed by 9/11 and therefore not a relevant comparison.

In addition, Obama retains a decided advantage over Republicans on prominent issues.

THE ECONOMY.

On the economy, more Americans think it is on the mend and credit Obama's stimulus package with having helped.

HEALTH CARE.

On health care, he is in a commanding position. Nearly two-thirds favor the Obama proposal to establish a government-run public option health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers. Most Americans trust Obama more than Republicans to make the right decisions on health care. The ratio of Americans who say he has better ideas about overhauling health care than Republicans is 2 to 1. And 76% say Republicans have not laid out a clear health care plan.

BI-PARTISANSHIP.

A large majority credit Obama for trying to reach across party lines. While, nearly two- thirds say Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama only for political gain.



PARTY PREFERENCE.

47% have a favorable view of Congressional Democrats.

30% have a favorable view of Republicans.

_________________________________________________________________

This is Ricardo News - We Report, You Decide, Some Cringe!

They are good. Timothy Geitner says that demand has improved.

The USA economy looks to be improving.

I doubt these theories about the Chinese and India taking over the USA are accurate. They have been claiming on this site for years.

I'm sick of the female bs in the news. Obama made the USA ok. The newspaper is somewhat tolerable.

They say Obama is the star of Acorn.

[quote]In a lengthy speech on the House floor today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) declared that President Obama is "the star of ACORN, the lead, chief organizer."

Railing against ACORN, King mentioned Obama's comment on Sunday that he hasn't paid much attention to the scandal.

"Really, Mr. President?" King said, revealing the poster of Obama you see at left.

"He's not interested in ACORN? He's ambivalent about it?" King asked. "Curious."

King went on about Obama's involvement with the housing group, saying it was part of the "genesis" of Obama's political life. "He walks with them all the way through."

He then called on every committee in the House to investigate ACORN. The Justice Department's "lame little announcement" that it will investigate the group isn't enough, he said.

Lest you forget, yesterday King claimed that gay marriage is but a first step on the path to socialism. [/QUOTE][url]http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/rep-king-obama-is-the-star-of-acorn.php?ref=fpb[/url]

Pelosi: 'Trigger Is An Excuse For Not Doing Anything'

[url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/pelosi-trigger-is-an-excuse-for-not-doing-anything.php/[/url]

[QUOTE]Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is not ready to accept a trigger option in place of a public option, she said today at a press conference.

"And the evidence seems to point, at this caucus that I just went to, that a trigger is an excuse for not doing anything," she said, reports Greg Sargent. "But everybody is open to listening to what people have to say. The point was made over and over again that for one reason or another the trigger was not effective in the Medicare Part D bill."

But, reports The Hill, she said, "I don't even want to talk about a trigger."

Pelosi has said a bill without a public option will not pass the House. Today's comments seem to show that the trigger would not be an acceptable substituted.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) backs the trigger option, and the White House has reportedly been trying to convince progressive groups to do the same. [/QUOTE]This is good news. Every other modern country has universal health care. About time.

I do not see how universal health coverage would not solve the problem with no prostitution and all the fast food, obnoxious garbage in the USA.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Last weekend, Michael Schwartz, long time conservative activist turned Chief of Staff to conservative Republican US Senator Tom Coburn spoke about pre-adolescent boys to a gathering of religious conservatives.

Schwartz said: "It is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuals. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it, and that's a good instinct"

Schwartz continued with what he called an "astonishingly insightful comment" of a formerly homosexual friend, that "all pornography is homosexual."

Holy fuck I'm gay and I didn't fucking know it. At least 99% of mongers are probably gay too. Porno is quite popular in this subset of the population.

Thankfully, Jon Stewart reminds us that Schwartz may be a bit off base when he points out - "there's one thing eleven year old boys like even less than homos ---- girls?"[/QUOTE]It's always refreshing to see these kind people speak off the cuff about sex. It provides a window into what kind of incredibly bizarre thinking goes on in what passes for a brain. Sooner or later this Schwartz will be arrested in a men's room somewhere with an 11 year old boy, a double headed dildo, a garter snake and a can of motor oil.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Actually, I was in the sophisticated world of ''hard knocks''. I doubt that I would have fallen for the propagandized Mr Kirk, who was seeking more government solutions, after the failures of LBJ, Nixon, and Viet Nam. I was in the world of managing big institutional money during the 1968-1974 bear market. Reality seem much more relevant to me than ''suckin up'' to grubby politicians an their lackeys![/QUOTE]You were so busy making the big bucks you probably weren't paying attention when after he and Kissinger engaged in a little treason during the 1968 campaign dealing with the North Vietnamese making sure they didn't do a deal with Johnson and let Humphrey beat him, Nixon took seven more years to lose the Vietnam War, while adding Laos to his fuck ups.

Unfortunately you weren't managing big institutional money in 2008, otherwise no doubt the global economy would still be humming along.

I know all government can do is fuck up, but the good old private sector is always there to keep things on an even keel. (I'm having a Jackson moment here LOTFLMAO)

Here's a short list of the private sector managerial prowess (including the price tags in losses) mostly among big money institutions, to compare to the ineptitude of government:

This is the tip of the iceberg - adding up to losses to investors worth $1.7 trillion and counting.

FIRM LOSS.

LEHMAN BROTHERS $691 BILLION.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL $328 BILLION.

WORLDCOM $108 BILLION.

US BANKS (94 TO-DATE) $103 BILLION.

GENERAL MOTORS $92 BILLION.

ENRON $66 BILLION.

AIG $62 BILLION.

CONESCO $62 BILLION.

CHRYSLER$39 BILLION.

THORNBUURG MORTGAGE$37 BILLION.

P, G & E$36 BILLION.

TEXACO$35 BILLION.

BEAR STEARNS$15 BILLION.

MERILL LYNCH$15 BILLION.

INDYMAC$11 BILLION.

REFCO$4 BILLION.

FINANCIAL CORP OF AMERICA$2 BILLION

Ricardo you and I agree on the point of private sector CEO pay being way out of whack, but while you are beating the drum on Private Sector failures lets just look back this year on how well the Government had done after taking over GM, Chrysler and AIG. Wow what a success story those are for Government intervention! Obama's guys just fessed up that all the investment in GM and Chrysler is in all likelyhood down the drain and will never be recovered (but it was a great payoff to the unions at the expense of the debt holders) and they don't have a clue about how much will ever come back from AIG (since we lowly taxpayers now own about 60%+ of AIG does that mean I get a seat at the table?

There is certainly enough blame to go around betwee Big Private Sector and Govermennt screwups and mismanagement. Goverment maybe good as some tasks but they don't have the brains or the balls to make it in business.

I am just waiting for 2010 to 2012 when the commerical real estate market colapses when the short term debt on the construction during the boom comes due and the delta between the loan and the current value is greater than the companies have in cash to bridge the gap. A lot of high priced real esate is going into forclosure. The big builders and others know this is coming but no one seems to be paying attention or doing anything about mitigating the ultimate colapse.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]There is certainly enough blame to go around between Big Private Sector and Goverment screwups and mismanagement.

(THAT was my point)

Obama's guys just fessed up that all the investment in GM and Chrysler is in all likelihood down the drain and will never be recovered.

(REMEMBER the auto companies were in trouble long before the fall of 2008 due to management stupidity; the crushing burden of the broken national health care system's ever increasing costs; and executive, worker and retiree compensation and benefit structures that were out of step with the companies' dwindling market share. When the Bush and Obama administrations decided to provide bridge funding to them there was NEVER an explicit promise that these were viable companies that would eventually repay taxpayers in full? The primary stated goal was to prevent an uncontrolled liquidation because such a prospect posed a systemic risk to the financial markets and the overall economy? A secondary goal was to advance broader goals including sustaining American manufacturing jobs at the firms and their enormous supplier networks. You may disagree with those objectives, but they have merit and may yet be proven to have been met. I admit I am less than enthusiastic about Obama's initial cozy support of Wall Street, but that is a game with a lot more innings ahead.

It was a great payoff to the unions at the expense of the debt holders.

(THAT statement is factually incorrect and a myth of the right wingers. Every stakeholder execs, workers, suppliers and investors took haircuts. You can check that for yourself)

AIG.

(WAS an awkward deal structured in extreme haste last October by Paulson and Bernaeke with three later iterations. A big part of the AIG dilemma was that their investment holdings and liabilities had been designed by their wiz kids to avoid regulation and became so convoluted that no accurate valuation could be set on huge components of the business and Treasury decided to just threw tens of billions into their pot rather than see the global financial system evaporate.

The big builders and others know this is coming but no one seems to be paying attention or doing anything about mitigating the ultimate collapse.[/QUOTE] We agree both on the fact that all of our institutions deserve failing grades and we are nowhere near out of the woods.

More tax cuts for the wealthy and elimination of all regulation, just don't seem to me likely to turn the world economy back into a jolly soft drink commercial- but that's just because my naive understanding of political economy and socialist tendencies has blinded me to the genius of the markets!

Wanna buy a bridge?

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Eight months into his Presidency, Barack Obama retains considerable political strength, according to a new New York Times / CBS News poll.[/quote]Your statement is a complete distortion of the truth.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month[/url]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]On the economy, more Americans think it is on the mend and credit Obama's stimulus package with having helped.[/quote]Your statement is a complete and utter fabrication.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/september_2009/36_say_stimulus_plan_has_helped_economy[/url]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Nearly two-thirds favor the Obama proposal to establish a government-run public option health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers.[/quote]Your statement is an absolute lie.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform[/url]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]A large majority credit Obama for trying to reach across party lines. While, nearly two- thirds say Republicans in Congress are opposing Obama only for political gain.[/quote]Again, another complete fabrication.

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.

The purpose of this thread is to facilitate political debate based on differing interpretation of the actual facts. It is not intended for the broadcast of fabricated political propaganda, which you have lately developed a panache for doing.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

Jackson

Regarding GM and Chrysler, if you look at the percentages before and after the restructuring the DEBT HOLDERS took a bath and the UNIONS gained. In my original post I was specific as to whom I was referring - DEBT HOLDERS not STAKEHOLDERS and the numbers do not lie - it is no MYTH!

Since both companies seem to be continuing their downward spiral even with taxpayer money in their pockets, in the end it really won't matter the unions gained in the restructuring deal. It may even be humorous when the unions start pointing fingers for mismanagement and have to point at themselves. Sort of like who got to be at the helm on the Titanic on the last evening of the cruise!

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]He just threw out the first pitch in the MLB All Star game.[/QUOTE]This morning, my 4yr old told my 7yr old that she looked like "Bo'bama" as she headed off to school. I asked "why?"

She replied "She's wearing 'mommy jeans'!"

That really made me laugh.

[quote=]The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson]Your statement is a complete distortion of the truth.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_month_by_month[/url]

Your statement is a complete and utter fabrication.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/september_2009/36_say_stimulus_plan_has_helped_economy[/url]

Your statement is an absolute lie.

[url]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform[/url]

Again, another complete fabrication.

Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.

The purpose of this thread is to facilitate political debate based on differing interpretation of the actual facts. It is not intended for the broadcast of fabricated political propaganda, which you have lately developed a panache for doing.

Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]It's your baby you rock it.

But does this mean I will be banned from posting good jokes too?!

I could keep you busy fact-finding, but if you are Sergeant Friday with a monopoly on facts, there's not much point.

For the record, should others wish to independently vet the Obama poll findings I posted, the Times/CBS data can be verified as ACCURATE by linking to:
http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-confusion-over-health-care-tepid-support-for-war#p=1[/url]

As you familiarize yourself with polling a caution. Rasmussen's methodology and findings are suspect among many polling experts. His Obama numbers have been out of synch with competing pollsters since 2007, which is why he is considered the RNC's pollster of choice. But if he's your source - go for it!

Off for the weekend!

[QUOTE=Jackson]Ricardo, I am not going to permit you to use this forum as a miniature version of the DailyKooks.[/QUOTE]It's already become a miniature version of Fox News.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Therefor, effective immediately, and in a move that is unprecedented in my 8 years of managing forums with millions of visitors, I will delete every statement you make that is presented as a statistical fact which is not accompanied by some independent source.

The bottom line is that I do not want to spend my days continuously researching and refuting each and every one of your wild assertions.[/QUOTE]Are you going to impose this on cutting and pasting directly from unsubstantiated "news" reports, etc? Or do you only sensor those you disagree with?

That's some bullshit Jackson.

Let me get this straight, you won't let Ricardo post his opinions but you will let Sidney post his bullshit opinions, and you'll even make him separate threads where he can post his bs?

I don't see you fact checking all the bullshit that Sidney or other right wing nuts post. I understand your politics differ greatly from Ricardo's but he should have the freedom to make his points. He has been twice as civil as most of the people who have responded to him.

Deleting or trying to censure Ricardo's civil posts just means the intellectually bankrupt individuals on this forum are crying uncle.

Congratulations

BM