# Is Obama's Approval Rating Going to Plunge into the Toilet at Record Speed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652 "2009-02-13T04:12:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/21 "2009-02-13T07:21:57Z")
At least give him a month. Geez. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/22 "2009-02-13T08:06:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But now, the gloves seem to be off. This move of the census to the White House political office (Karl Rove’s old joint) is either a move to help Democrats gerrmander or otherwise rig a few more electoral districts, or gather opposition research, in which case it’s an abuse of the Presidency. Or it means nothing, in which case it was a politically tone-deaf boneheaded move. Or option 3: there were non-sinister reasons behind it that were judged more important than potential blowback. ETA: OP might also be interested in responses I got in a couple of [somewhat similar](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=504272) threads that [I started](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505094) a while back. Somewhat devil’s advocacy, both, but they do seem to address some of what you ask. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/23 "2009-02-13T09:47:02Z")
Support for Geitner as Secretary of Treasury goes against everything the campaign stood for. He was treated like he was the only person capable of doing the job and his first press conference was a complete FUBAR. This guy was worth pissing away credibility for? The stimulus package was a one-party smack down done in secrecy both from Republicans and the public. This was made worse by using attack ads against Republicans. Attack ads 3 weeks into a new administration! I mean WTF, This is his idea of bipartisan politics? Obama is flying around the country in Air Force One promoting the stimulus package we’re not allowed to see and he’s making an ass out of himself. If he had any briefing at all about Caterpillar he would have known that they wouldn’t be hiring if his package is passed. He made the same mistake in Elkhart Indiana when a woman asked if the package would help them directly. Any briefing at all would have told him that it was a credit market issue keeping people from buying RV’s. That’s going to come back and bite him in the ass. I’m hoping the idea that Obama will have the Census director report directly to him is a joke as well as any attempt to manipulate the FCC to enact legislation that would silence his critics. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/24 "2009-02-13T11:45:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I’m not going to guess at his popularity, but I am shocked by how badly this administration has started out of the gate. I actually had high hopes for Obama during the transition. But holy smokes he’s gone wrong in a big way. > > First, he’s violated a pile of campaign promises. And not just little ones. The latest was his administration’s invocation of the state secret law, which the left used to hammer Bush for. > > . Sure has… but no media outlet left of Fox News cares all that much. They’ll be a little critical of him and his admin (mainly others in his admin) but they’ll buck him and his approval ratings up and he’ll be fine for a long time. Prediction … Chris Mathews will be in the administration by June. I take that back… he’s more valuable where he is. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/25 "2009-02-13T13:03:52Z")
The slight change in the accountability for the census was just because Democrats didn’t want Gregg to be able to mess with it, no? How nefarious. Turns out the dude was a huge asshole anyway. Obama’s main problem is thinking that he can work on solving our huge problems by including those who caused them in the first place. You know, all those that Sam Stone had eight years of solid faith in. I think he doth protest too much at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/26 "2009-02-13T15:31:06Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s how this bill is developing. It’s a gigantic mess. It’s being drafted by the professional rent-seeking class. This is the type of baseless extreme criticism that discredits the right wing. The true rent seekers recently left office but not before securing Lockheed Martin’s place in the government food chain. I think people lose sight of the enormous problems the U.S. must solve or at least mitigate. Correcting the catastrophic failure of the banks is difficult because of the size and scope of the financial sector. Contrary to what the conservative think tanks claim, the economic situation is serious, the dollar is fragile, and global disdain towards the U.S. is high. Since there is no longer a market for securitized debt, the U.S. needs to produce something to export. I think Obama wants to invest heavily in education, science and research to try and move the country towards high tech industry. Do the Republicans have any ideas? The right-wing’s determination to politicize an unprecedented crisis for points is dishonorable. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/27 "2009-02-13T15:38:43Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > The right-wing’s determination to politicize an unprecedented crisis for points is dishonorable. This is to be expected, as the Right have no concept of what the word “honor” means. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/28 "2009-02-13T15:45:26Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > This is the type of baseless extreme criticism that discredits the right wing. The true rent seekers recently left office but not before securing Lockheed Martin’s place in the government food chain. > > I think people lose sight of the enormous problems the U.S. must solve or at least mitigate. Correcting the catastrophic failure of the banks is difficult because of the size and scope of the financial sector. Contrary to what the conservative think tanks claim, the economic situation is serious, the dollar is fragile, and global disdain towards the U.S. is high. Since there is no longer a market for securitized debt, the U.S. needs to produce something to export. I think Obama wants to invest heavily in education, science and research to try and move the country towards high tech industry. Do the Republicans have any ideas? > > The right-wing’s determination to politicize an unprecedented crisis for points is dishonorable. Oh, bullshit. If you want to invest in education, let it go through normal appropriations. Don’t put it in a stimulus package that is described as needed for immediate impact, lest the catastrophe worsen. And I have no idea what your nonsense about replacing securitized debt as an export is supposed to mean at all, much less in the context of a discussion about a stimulus bill. It is not politicizing to question an expenditure of $790 billion that will indebt our children long after we’re gone, was pulled together in a short-span of time, that will effectively expand an already out-of control government permanently, and whose primary support seems to be, “This is a crisis! We have to do _something_!” No, we don’t. And we especially don’t have to do this. No one has provided any plausible explanation as to why the elements of this pork-ridden clusterfuck of a bill will combine to produce the effect intended, or any other benefit beyond those falling on the people who benefit from the pork. God almighty, is this an awful bill–dishonest, misguided and with a long-term effect. It’s a spending orgy. If Obama thought leaving this in the hands of people like Pelosi and Reid would have resulted in any other outcome, and that this could possibly have been palatable as a compromise to the Republicans. then he’s an idiot. But if we don’t just play along, we’re “dishonorable,” eh? Well, too bad. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/29 "2009-02-13T15:50:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > At least give him a month. Geez. Just FTR, that’s what I’ve been saying to the people who have been singing Obama’s praises – often before he even took office. Actually, I’ve been saying something like “Let’s wait at least a year before deciding that he’s a great President,” but the sentiment is basically the same. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/30 "2009-02-13T17:25:41Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Oh, bullshit. If you want to invest in education, let it go through normal appropriations. Don’t put it in a stimulus package that is described as needed for immediate impact, lest the catastrophe worsen. And I have no idea what your nonsense about replacing securitized debt as an export is supposed to mean at all, much less in the context of a discussion about a stimulus bill. Something needs to replace the dominant role the financial sector had in the economy. Obama wanted to build schools to produce jobs while investing in education. He wanted to fund grants for higher education which keeps universities open and professors teaching. He wanted to fund other educational programs that employ people while investing in human capitol. What you consider pork others view as an investment in long term economic health. Whatever the criticism, the bill is public spending. I don’t believe the Republicans are concerned about what constitutes stimulus as much as they are determined not to spend money on education or any social program. When funding for education is introduced again, the Republicans will oppose it again. > [@](#): > > It is not politicizing to question an expenditure of $790 billion that will indebt our children long after we’re gone, was pulled together in a short-span of time, that will effectively expand an already out-of control government permanently, and whose primary support seems to be, "This is a crisis! . Well, it’s bullshit if you claim the Republicans only questioned the stimulus. The Republican stance was a political tactic. The claims against the stimulus and President Obama get more extreme by the day. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/31 "2009-02-13T19:39:54Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > 1. Economic stimulus package #2 (#1 didn’t work) could not only haunt but kill Obama only a few weeks into his presidency. Most of the public is against it . . . Gallup poll: [Stimulus Support Edges Higher, Now 59%.](http://www.gallup.com/poll/114577/Stimulus-Support-Edges-Higher.aspx) > [@Shagnasty](#): > > 1. Cabinet appointments - they are dropping like flies. There are people in the administration that are supposed to do this homework beforehand and yet they can’t seem to do it. Some are already dropping out due to lack of confidence in the administration. Meh. Better to have this kind of shakeout at the start than midterm like Carter. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > 1. Reckless and opaque decisions - moving the U.S. census to the White House is but one big example. There is no reason to do that without other motives. It is a simple count that the U.S. Constitution says has to happen every 10 years and it gets done. Obama wants to hide that in secrecy for some reason rather than dealing with any existing problems which is alarming. :rolleyes: [Oh, please.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505967) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/32 "2009-02-13T21:59:46Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Cabinet appointments - they are dropping like flies. There are people in the administration that are supposed to do this homework beforehand and yet they can’t seem to do it. Some are already dropping out due to lack of confidence in the administration. Remind me again… How many years was it before Bush found a national science advisor? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/33 "2009-02-13T22:32:00Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > Something needs to replace the dominant role the financial sector had in the economy. Obama wanted to build schools to produce jobs while investing in education. He wanted to fund grants for higher education which keeps universities open and professors teaching. He wanted to fund other educational programs that employ people while investing in human capitol. What you consider pork others view as an investment in long term economic health. Whatever the criticism, the bill is public spending. That’s not what it was sold as! What happened to the dire, immediate need for a stimulus, the need so urgent, Obama told us, every day we waited was at our peril? That was for education grants? Are you kidding me? When does that pay off? Why couldn’t that wait a couple of weeks while the bill was debated? Could it be because the longer the details were out in the open, the greater the odds that people would begin to call bullshit? You want spending to support education? Fine. Let it go through the normal appropriations process. It has NOTHING to do with economic stimulus. It is the very definition of pork. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe the Republicans are concerned about what constitutes stimulus as much as they are determined not to spend money on education or any social program. When funding for education is introduced again, the Republicans will oppose it again. Then they’d be right here! How dishonest to sell something as an urgently needed economic stimulus, then bake in pet projects and pork! How dishonorable! > [@](#): > > Well, it’s bullshit if you claim the Republicans only questioned the stimulus. The Republican stance was a political tactic. The claims against the stimulus and President Obama get more extreme by the day. It’s all political, from every Republican, huh? Not a single one truly sees any flaws in this abortion of a bill? Grow up. There’s posturing on both sides off the aisle, but there is PLENTY to be apoplectically enraged about with this bill. It is disgusting, shameful. Opposition to a $790 billion pork-ridden bill that no one can really say will produce the effect intended is not by definition political or dishonorable, except to people who find it most convenient to argue straw men and demonize opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/34 "2009-02-13T22:32:42Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > Something needs to replace the dominant role the financial sector had in the economy. Obama wanted to build schools to produce jobs while investing in education. He wanted to fund grants for higher education which keeps universities open and professors teaching. He wanted to fund other educational programs that employ people while investing in human capitol. What you consider pork others view as an investment in long term economic health. Whatever the criticism, the bill is public spending. > > I don’t believe the Republicans are concerned about what constitutes stimulus as much as they are determined not to spend money on education or any social program. When funding for education is introduced again, the Republicans will oppose it again. > [@](#): > > Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent. According to the department, annual spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent between 2001 and 2006. In 2007, the department will spend 59 percent more on special education programs than it did in 2001. … > > Under a Republican-controlled Congress, federal spending on higher education has increased almost as dramatically as K-12 spending over the past six years. For example, annual Department of Education spending on federal Pell Grants grew from $8.7 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006, nearly 50 percent growth. The federal government spends considerably more on higher education today than it did during the Clinton administration. According to the College Board, federal funding for higher education in 2004-2005 totaled $90 billion, a real increase of 103 percent over ten years. > > An increasing number of students receive federal subsidies for higher education. For example, 5.3 million students received federal Pell Grants in 2005, an increase of 44 percent over ten years. In all, in 2006 more than 10 million Americans will receive various federal subsidies for higher education. [Cite](http://www.heritage.org/research/education/ednotes49.cfm). Doesn’t seem to have prevented the latest recession, though. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/35 "2009-02-13T23:42:53Z")
Nor does it apparently prevent people from insisting that Republicans care nothing about funding education. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/36 "2009-02-13T23:57:30Z")
The problem isn’t that Republicans don’t want to fund education; the problem is that they only want to fund their own children’s education. Hence the “No Child Left Behind” act, which leaves behind students in poor schools, and the whole voucher thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ocean\_Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8797f3/32.png) [@Ocean\_Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ocean_Annie)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/37 "2009-02-14T00:14:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [Cite](http://www.heritage.org/research/education/ednotes49.cfm). > > Doesn’t seem to have prevented the latest recession, though. > > Regards, > Shodan The problem was the Bush Administration’s underfunding of NCLB. > [@](#): > > But many say even that increase is not enough, considering the demands the law imposes on schools. Funding is still $7 billion a year under what was envisioned in the authorizing legislation for No Child Left Behind, according to the National Education Association. > And it isn’t just Democrats and the teachers unions saying it. In Republican-dominated Utah, the superintendent of the state’s largest school district estimated it would cost $182 million over the next 10 years to implement all the provisions of No Child Left Behind, compared to the $2.2 million per year it now receives in federal aid. And in Republican-dominated Ohio, a study for the state department of education estimated the cost of compliance with the law to be $149 million per year. [http://www.factcheck.org/article181.html](http://www.factcheck.org/article181.html) > [@](#): > > The Bush administration, in the same year that it is spends $10 billion each month on operations in Iraq, plans on vetoing a bill because it increases funding for American schools by $2.6 billion, among other domestic budget increases. What’s even more surprising is that Education Secretary Margaret Spellings actually announced back in February that Bush’s newly proposed budget would increase education funding by 41 percent relative to 2001. A look at the president’s budget tells a different story. > As the map below shows, 44 out of 50 states would see reductions in federal funding for elementary and secondary education for fiscal year 2008 if the Bush administration go its way. Rather than bold increases, states on average will see a -1.4 percent decrease in elementary and secondary school funding. [http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/10/education\_map.html](http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/10/education_map.html) > [@](#): > > For instance, Connecticut estimates it will cost the state $41.6 million more to implement NCLB than the federal government is providing. Local communities will bear additional costs, too. [Local discontent with 'No Child Left Behind' grows - CSMonitor.com](http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0819/p03s01-legn.html) In higher education, Bush cut funding for certain programs and schools. For example, Bush apparently doesn’t like social work, Liberal Arts, or black colleges. More importantly, public universities depend on state funding and Bush cut state funding. > [@](#): > > Costs at public universities, in fact, have increased only modestly over the past two decades.What has changed dramatically is the proportion of the costs paid by state allocations and those paid by tuition and fees. State allocations per student, when adjusted for inflation, have plummeted; tuition and fees have increased to make up the difference. But total costs have remained remarkably constant. > [@](#): > > Public universities are being targeted for privatization as a result. “Taxpayer support for public universities, measured per student, has plunged more precipitously since 2001 than at any time in two decades,” the Times reported last month. Faculty members are devoting more time to research often funded by private interests; college presidents are raising billions of dollars in private funds, and some of the buildings being built on public university campuses now bear the names of corporate donors. > [http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/38612/the\_plight\_of\_public\_universities](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/38612/the_plight_of_public_universities) Just to show the ideology and Bush policy connection, Margaret Spellings was Bush’s Education Secretary > [@](#): > > The evidence shows no positive association between state government spending on public universities and economic growth, suggesting the positive externalities claimed for higher education are overblown. As a long-term public policy objective, I think government should largely exit the higher education business. Shorter-term, we should oppose vast increases in aid pro¬grams and demand higher levels of transparency and measurements of results from schools accept¬ing federal funds. We should reduce barriers to entry imposed by accrediting bodies; we should end all subsidies to students beyond four years of college attendance; we should force schools taking federal money to be less restrictive in inter-institu¬tional transfers; and we should do a host of other things that time does not permit me to talk about that would make universities more efficient, more accountable, and better. Including making profes¬sors teach more, by the way. ( Richard Vedderr, member of The Spellings Commission. Heritage Foundation) [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/hl984.cfm](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/hl984.cfm) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/38 "2009-02-14T07:51:21Z")
I like Obama, and was overjoyed when he won. But this porkfest is disgusting. Huge chunks of the “Stimulus” Bill do nothing, absolutely nothing, to stimulate the economy. Much of it is good stuff, perhaps very important stuff. But it doesn’t do a damn thing to stimulate the economy. It has no place in the bill. I kept waiting and hoping for Obama to wade in and say something like “Hey, we’re borrowing money from our kids to do this. It’s for the stimulus and nothing but stimulus. It is designed to be fast-acting and produce quick results. I don’t want to see anything with a long term payback. We need job training for our workers today, so take out all the Head Start money and put it into job training. Get real.” Still waiting … so I’d say he’s failed his first real test. He stood by and watched porkers take money from Malia and Sasha and did nothing. Not good. Which was very disappointing for me, but I still support him. Why? Because he thinks about this stuff, he’s smart, and he learns from his mistakes. Novel concept in a President, I know … ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/39 "2009-02-14T09:22:38Z")
> [@intention](#): > > I like Obama, and was overjoyed when he won. > > But this porkfest is disgusting. Huge chunks of the “Stimulus” Bill do nothing, absolutely nothing, to stimulate the economy. Much of it is good stuff, perhaps very important stuff. But it doesn’t do a damn thing to stimulate the economy. It has no place in the bill. > > I kept waiting and hoping for Obama to wade in and say something like “Hey, we’re borrowing money from our kids to do this. It’s for the stimulus and nothing but stimulus. It is designed to be fast-acting and produce quick results. I don’t want to see anything with a long term payback. We need job training for our workers today, so take out all the Head Start money and put it into job training. Get real.” > > Still waiting … so I’d say he’s failed his first real test. He stood by and watched porkers take money from Malia and Sasha and did nothing. Not good. > > Which was very disappointing for me, but I still support him. Why? Because he thinks about this stuff, he’s smart, and he learns from his mistakes. Novel concept in a President, I know … I was with you until the last paragraph. Is this just a little bump in the road with no significant long term economic implications? Will he learn form this and do better next time? . ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/40 "2009-02-14T10:25:27Z")
[This](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html) is a list of stimulus appropriations the Republicans found disagreeable. If I’ve done my maths right (no guarantee), the “pork” comprises less than 2% of the bill. That 2% equals about 6 weeks of what is currently being spent keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, again, if I’ve done my sums correctly. This is all assuming, if only for the sake of argument, that every item on the list has zero job creation potential. As it turns out, it’s easy to imagine the benefits of many of these “objectionable” appropriations. For instance, one of the items Republicans found particularly objectionable was a $6 billion earmark to turn all Federal buildings “green”. Speaking generally about the bill House Republican Leader John Boehner [said](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090214/ap_on_go_co/congress_stimulus) _“The bill that was about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that’s about spending, spending, spending.”_ But surely it doesn’t take a gifted imagination to picture the hundreds, maybe thousands, of men and women who would spend the next few years industriously beavering away to make all Federal buildings more energy efficient. Solar panels don’t fit themselves, after all. It seems to me that Republicans are picking on certain elements of the bill they deem ideologically offensive (“Global warming doesn’t even _exist_, lest alone require combating!”), declaring certain elements wasteful, and then using that to sully the entire bill. In other words, they’re playing politics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652.md?page=3)