Only 35 percent say they’re confident he's got the right set of goals, policies
WASHINGTON - When Barack Obama entered office, the expectations that he and others set for his presidency couldn’t have been higher.
Obama announced that he was embarking on an ambitious agenda — to create new jobs, to reform the nation’s health care system, to lessen the world’s nuclear threats and to curb partisan bickering.
But as Obama wraps up his first full year in office, the American public has grown increasingly skeptical over his promises to change Washington and his "yes-we-can" agenda, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
A plurality of Americans believe his health care overhaul is a bad idea; fewer than one in five are satisfied with the economy; just 30 percent give him good marks on changing business as usual in Washington; and a majority think he has accomplished “very little” or “only some” of his goals over the past 12 months.
“What Americans wanted and expected was a better economy, a reduced presence in Iraq and a fundamental change in the way Washington does business,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with GOP pollster Bill McInturff.
“This hasn’t happened. And not surprisingly, the president has suffered.”
“What Americans wanted and expected was a better economy, a reduced presence in Iraq and a fundamental change in the way Washington does business,”
QFT.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:32 am
by Appaholic
danefan wrote:
“What Americans wanted and expected was a better economy, a reduced presence in Iraq and a fundamental change in the way Washington does business,”
QFT.
QFT?
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:34 am
by danefan
Appaholic wrote:
danefan wrote:
QFT.
QFT?
Quoted For Truth.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:43 am
by GannonFan
Obama's biggest ray of hope was the chance to possibly change the way politics was being waged - the post-partisan idea. Unfortunately, he turned a lot of the priority staking over to a truly unpopular Congress, and there's been little to no change in politicking in Washington - heck, with the super majority, you can argue it got worse.
Obama's still fine as he's not running again until 2012 and unless the economy is still in tatters he's very likely to win reeelection (incumbents are so hard to unseat). But unless he pulls back some of the reins from Congress and starts setting his own path, the Dems are looking at some disturbing results in November. Obama can't afford to be led by the Pelosi's and Reid's if he wants to slow this train of momentum of voter angst.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:50 am
by andy7171
Appaholic wrote:
danefan wrote:
QFT.
QFT?
I just did a urbandictionary search on it.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:53 am
by UNI88
GannonFan wrote:Obama's biggest ray of hope was the chance to possibly change the way politics was being waged - the post-partisan idea. Unfortunately, he turned a lot of the priority staking over to a truly unpopular Congress, and there's been little to no change in politicking in Washington - heck, with the super majority, you can argue it got worse.
Obama's still fine as he's not running again until 2012 and unless the economy is still in tatters he's very likely to win reeelection (incumbents are so hard to unseat). But unless he pulls back some of the reins from Congress and starts setting his own path, the Dems are looking at some disturbing results in November. Obama can't afford to be led by the Pelosi's and Reid's if he wants to slow this train of momentum of voter angst.
]
True! Pelosi and Reid are dragging Obama down. He needs to show his backbone and reach across the aisle with or without them in a meaningful way that the American public will recognize if the Republicans try and obstruct.
Why politicians like to let the voting public believe that they can actually improve the economy in a year is beyond me. A President's policies typically won't impact the economy until many years (10-20) after they've been instituted. An economic downturn was coming in 2008 regardless of what Bush or anyone else did. You can effectively argue that Bush's (deficit spending) and Congress' (encouraging the everyone can get a loan and buy a home approach) policies made the recession worse but the economy is a cyclical thing and the recession was going to happen. For an Administration and Congress to think that they could throw money willy nilly at a recession and that it will get better is arrogant. You make some strategic decisions about where to allocate resources and for the most part you just ride the storm out.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:13 am
by YoUDeeMan
GannonFan wrote:Obama's biggest ray of hope was the chance to possibly change the way politics was being waged - the post-partisan idea. Unfortunately, he turned a lot of the priority staking over to a truly unpopular Congress, and there's been little to no change in politicking in Washington - heck, with the super majority, you can argue it got worse.
Obama's still fine as he's not running again until 2012 and unless the economy is still in tatters he's very likely to win reeelection (incumbents are so hard to unseat). But unless he pulls back some of the reins from Congress and starts setting his own path, the Dems are looking at some disturbing results in November. Obama can't afford to be led by the Pelosi's and Reid's if he wants to slow this train of momentum of voter angst.
Things are not going to get better anytime soon so it might be better for Obama to distance himself from the pack.
"...but hiring will be more expensive for all Virginia business owners this year. The recession has emptied Virginia's unemployment insurance trust fund, and the state is making up for it by raising taxes on employers and cutting jobless benefits for seniors.
Similar tax increases are hitting employers nationwide this year as states struggle to pay the 5.5 million Americans currently collecting state jobless benefits. So far, high unemployment and, in many cases, poor planning have prompted 25 states to borrow more than $25 billion from the federal government to keep benefit checks in the mail.
Tax on businesses
Business owners in 36 states face tax increases ranging from a few dollars to nearly $1,000 per worker. Six states are scaling back or freezing benefits for the unemployed:
• Jobless Pennsylvania workers will get 2.3% less in benefits starting this month, while the average tax this year for businesses will increase to $432 from $384 per worker.
• Hawaii's employers face an average increase to $1,070 from $90 per worker. The state also proposes decreasing the maximum benefit by as much as a third — about $190 per week.
• Texas, where the trust fund is $1.4 billion in the red, has increased the average tax on employers to about $165 from $89 per worker.
Instead of fulfilling the unemployment insurance system's purpose of stimulating the economy, these measures may contribute to joblessness, says Gary Burtless, an economist who studies labor policy at the Brookings Institution, a think tank. "We don't want to pick this moment of all moments to boost taxes on employers," Burtless says. "We want to encourage employers as much as possible to add to their payrolls."
Many states such as Virginia are already at or near the highest payroll tax rates allowed by law, and others have pushed politically difficult tax increases through their legislatures, making further benefit cuts likely if high unemployment persists, says Rich Hobbie, executive director of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies.
Some of the pain might have been avoidable. Long before the recession began, Virginia and many other states that have imposed tax increases or benefit cuts let their trust funds dwindle well below the 18 months of reserves the U.S. Labor Department recommends."
So, exactly who was responsible for dwindling the state's unemployment trust funds? They should be held accountable this fall.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:12 pm
by AZGrizFan
Obama made the classic mistake when addressing your constituents....never OVER promise and UNDER deliver.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:17 pm
by FargoBison
I guess I should have posted this here. Obama's broken promises(this is just a few)...
No Earmarks...His first bill had over 9,000 earmarks
Lobbyists/Special Interests...
"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president."
Spending
"No doubt we have been living beyond our means and need to make adjustment"
That is what Obama said during the campaign and promised spending cuts...In his first year spending increased 2 trillion, more than any year in history.
GannonFan wrote:Obama's biggest ray of hope was the chance to possibly change the way politics was being waged - the post-partisan idea. Unfortunately, he turned a lot of the priority staking over to a truly unpopular Congress, and there's been little to no change in politicking in Washington - heck, with the super majority, you can argue it got worse.
Obama's still fine as he's not running again until 2012 and unless the economy is still in tatters he's very likely to win reeelection (incumbents are so hard to unseat). But unless he pulls back some of the reins from Congress and starts setting his own path, the Dems are looking at some disturbing results in November. Obama can't afford to be led by the Pelosi's and Reid's if he wants to slow this train of momentum of voter angst.
If he pulls back the reins from Congress and and lets his uber-radical team take charge of pushing his extreme left wing issues, he will be in even worse trouble.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:01 am
by AZGrizFan
native wrote:
GannonFan wrote:Obama's biggest ray of hope was the chance to possibly change the way politics was being waged - the post-partisan idea. Unfortunately, he turned a lot of the priority staking over to a truly unpopular Congress, and there's been little to no change in politicking in Washington - heck, with the super majority, you can argue it got worse.
Obama's still fine as he's not running again until 2012 and unless the economy is still in tatters he's very likely to win reeelection (incumbents are so hard to unseat). But unless he pulls back some of the reins from Congress and starts setting his own path, the Dems are looking at some disturbing results in November. Obama can't afford to be led by the Pelosi's and Reid's if he wants to slow this train of momentum of voter angst.
If he pulls back the reins from Congress and and lets his uber-radical team take charge of pushing his extreme left wing issues, he will be in even worse trouble.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:22 am
by Ivytalk
Obama is a philosophical soul brother of Pelosi and Reid. He is too arrogant and intellectually rigid to put any "distance" between himself and them (among other hard lefties in Congress). The more I watch this guy, the more I conclude that Clinton -- not Barry Sortero -- was the most skillful and "flexible" Democratic politician to hold the Presidency since FDR.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:24 am
by AZGrizFan
Ivytalk wrote:Obama is a philosophical soul brother of Pelosi and Reid. He is too arrogant and intellectually rigid to put any "distance" between himself and them (among other hard lefties in Congress). The more I watch this guy, the more I conclude that Clinton -- not Barry Sortero -- was the most skillful and "flexible" Democratic politician to hold the Presidency since FDR.
Agreed. I've said this several times over the past year....I can't believe we're sitting here longing for the "good old days of Bill Clinton".
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:15 am
by UNI88
AZGrizFan wrote:
Ivytalk wrote:Obama is a philosophical soul brother of Pelosi and Reid. He is too arrogant and intellectually rigid to put any "distance" between himself and them (among other hard lefties in Congress). The more I watch this guy, the more I conclude that Clinton -- not Barry Sortero -- was the most skillful and "flexible" Democratic politician to hold the Presidency since FDR.
Agreed. I've said this several times over the past year....I can't believe we're sitting here longing for the "good old days of Bill Clinton".
I liked Clinton as POTUS and thought the impeachment was a witch hunt that focused on mostly irrelevant issues (Whitewater was a much bigger potential red flag to me than Lewinsky).
I'm not sure I would call Obama's team uber-radical. Rahmbo is the consumate politician, working the angles, keeping the sponsors happy (and the dollars flowing). He's kind of like Obama's Karl Rove and he isn't the only one on the staff.
Obama has reached a critical point that will likely define his presidency. If I remember correctly, Reagan was experiencing similar numbers at this point in his first term. Will Obama step up and lead in a pragmatic and bipartisan fashion (working with Reps like Reagan did with Tip) or will he continue to let Pelosi and Reid define the Democratic agenda and see his Presidential legacy go the way of Jimmy Carter's?
In his book "The Audacity of Hope," Barack Obama had the insight to explain much of his political appeal. "I serve as a blank screen," he wrote, "on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." That lack of definition proved a big asset in the presidential campaign, allowing him to attract support from liberals who saw Hillary Rodham Clinton as too hawkish, moderates who saw her as too liberal, and independents who saw John McCain as too conservative and too partisan.
But in his first year in office, the president has had to fill in that screen. And many Americans are disillusioned with the picture that has emerged.
... The president's admirers think that as the recovery strengthens, Obama will bounce back, just as Reagan did.
We wouldn't bet too much on it. What Reagan had that Obama doesn't was a mandate for a clear set of policies: cutting taxes, rebuilding the military and freeing the economy from too much government, which eventually yielded good results. Obama, by contrast, has embraced policies more ambitious and sometimes quite different from what he led Americans to expect — and which may not work out so well.
During the campaign, he proposed a stimulus plan costing $60 billion, but once in office, he signed one with a price tag of $787 billion. His health care plan is far more expensive than he estimated during the campaign. He didn't campaign on a promise to take over General Motors and Chrysler. His budgets forecast an endless river of red ink. And he's done little to install the bipartisan approach he once extolled.
The result is a picture of the president as an old-fashioned, big-government Democrat — not the open-minded, non-ideological innovator he once portrayed. Much of the impetus for this direction comes from Democrats in Congress, notably House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have never been accused of fresh thinking or devotion to bipartisanship. Obama's biggest mistake was to defer so much to them.
Had Obama taken a tougher stance toward his own party — shown a bit more audacity — the stimulus might have been less larded with pork and the health care plan might have focused on incremental, broadly popular changes that could have attracted significant Republican support. Instead, he now finds himself of being lumped with a Congress that has even worse approval ratings than he does — and in danger of losing the health care battle anyway.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:47 am
by kalm
Yeah it would suck if he turned to the left and started doing things to benefit the middle class.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:09 am
by UNI88
kalm wrote:Yeah it would suck if he turned to the left and started doing things to benefit the middle class.
How would turning to the left benefit the middle class?
Me perspective on a couple of key Democratic initiatives and the middle class:
- stimulus package: loaded with pork that benefited political supporters rather than truly stimulating the economy or improving the infrastructure for the future. The middle class (working or unemployed) saw little benefit from the stimulus and mistrusts the governments ability to improve the economy.
- health care: single payer/public option might be huge issues for liberals and the majority of this country (i.e. the middle class) is not opposed to improving the health care options for those whose only option is the emergency room but they don't want to see it done at the expense of their own relatively good health care options. Why is it ok to improve health care for 20% of the country at the risk of reducing the options/coverage for the 80% who have it? And if you're going to put the quality of existing health care policies at risk why should the union plans get a pass when they talk about taxing platinum health care plans? IMO, the middle class is extremely weary of a monstrous, byzantine government agency administering their healh care insurance and going further to the left to push this option doesn't help them, it scares them. They're also tired of the pandering to various constituencies and the backroom deals. Obama promised bipartisanship and the end of business as usual, he hasn't delivered either yet.
Pelosi and Reid seem to think that they know what this country needs and they're going to give it to us whether we want it or not. That approach is going to further disenfranchise voters and make Obama a one-term President. He needs to step up and lead by offering pragmatic solutions not idealistic ones. The 80/20 rule is one he and Congress need to consider - trying to improve it for the 20% isn't a bad thing just make sure you don't fvck it up for the 80% while you're doing it.
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 10:16 am
by native
Appaholic wrote:Only 35 percent say they’re confident he's got the right set of goals, policies
WASHINGTON - When Barack Obama entered office, the expectations that he and others set for his presidency couldn’t have been higher.
Obama announced that he was embarking on an ambitious agenda — to create new jobs, to reform the nation’s health care system, to lessen the world’s nuclear threats and to curb partisan bickering.
But as Obama wraps up his first full year in office, the American public has grown increasingly skeptical over his promises to change Washington and his "yes-we-can" agenda, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Obama and his uber-leftists have been the ultimate bait-and-switch change meisters, using the mantra of change to purposefully transform society away from the Constitution and towards national socialism.
...and no, kalm, turning to the left will not benefit the middle class in the long term. Leftist solutions are nothing more tan euthanasia for the middle class. You are a false prophet. Is it due to purpose, ignorance, or both? Saul Alinsky fan, are you?
Re: Poll: Americans Skeptical of Obama's Promises
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:51 pm
by Col Hogan
Americans have every right to be skeptical about Obama's promises because they are starting to realize the Obama priorities are not their priorities...
Take the current health care debate...it is priority one of the Obama Administration despite the fact it is not the number one priority of the American public...
The White House also wants to get past the health care debate, however, and move quickly to issues such as creating more jobs and reducing deficit spending. Both concerns consistently rank higher than health care in polls on voters' priorities.
Yet, even with health care not the top priority of the public, the election of Senator Brown from Massachusetts offers Democrats an opening to possibly pass legislation the public will accept...but only if they truly make it bi-partisan...something totally lacking in the current 2000 pages of Democratic-only work...
A 55% majority of Americans say President Obama and congressional Democrats should suspend work on the health care bill that has been on the verge of passage and consider alternatives that would draw more Republican support, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Wednesday finds.
The findings underscore the unsettled prospects for health care legislation — which has consumed much of the capital's attention for nearly a year — in the wake of Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday. When sworn in, he will give Republicans the 41st vote they need to sustain a filibuster and block action.
An overwhelming 72% of those surveyed say the Massachusetts result "reflects frustrations shared by many Americans, and the president and members of Congress should pay attention to it." Just 18% say it "reflects political conditions in Massachusetts and doesn't have a larger meaning for national politics."
Economic guru Barry Sortero just proposed new restrictions on bank investment powers and other matters. The market is nosediving (200+ points as I type this).
Some pundit just said that Jimmy Carter is breathing a sigh of relief because, from this time henceforth, jokes about inept administrations won't be about him. Or at least solely about him.
I just did a urbandictionary search on it.
