# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/61 "2009-02-15T04:24:45Z")
There’s some guys over at Blackwater, likely going to be on the labor market. ---
**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 15, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/62 "2009-02-15T07:49:08Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Now y’all propose to bail them out, using my kid’s money. I disagree entirely. > > The California state bureaucracy is loaded to the gills with fat. It will never be cut unless it has to be cut. Here, now, is the chance. Here is where the state should cut, before it drains our budgets for decades … but oh, no, run to Uncle Sugar and get some money to keep the porkfest alive. That way, we can have perpetual ham and bacon in the California Government. Disgusting. California has one of the largest economies in the world. I assure you that California has contributed far more to federal coffers than it has received. I am happy to help the great state of California. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/63 "2009-02-15T14:07:37Z")
[Frank Rich’s](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15rich.html) column this morning is right on point. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/64 "2009-02-15T14:31:35Z")
What are people’s thoughts on the seven Democratic members of congress who voted against the bill; after all, there were more dems against this than there were pubs for it. Were they also being partisans and traitors? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/65 "2009-02-15T14:41:31Z")
> [@furt](#): > > What are people’s thoughts on the seven Democratic members of congress who voted against the bill; after all, there were more dems against this than there were pubs for it. Were they also being partisans and traitors? I would venture to guess that none of the 535 members of Congress are traitors. Perhaps that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/66 "2009-02-15T15:29:40Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > California has one of the largest economies in the world. I assure you that California has contributed far more to federal coffers than it has received. I am happy to help the great state of California. [Blue states pay more than red states, get less back:](http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html) > [@](#): > > Of the 19 states that cast their electoral college votes for John Kerry in the 2004 election, 12 received less than a dollar from the federal government for each dollar they paid in taxes, and one (Oregon) broke even. Of the 31 states that voted for George Bush, 25 received more than a dollar for each dollar in federal taxes, and one (Florida) broke even.[1] > > Eight of the top-ten state recipients of federal dollars, on a per capita basis, voted Republican.[2] > > Put another way, over the last decade, blue states collectively paid $1.4 trillion more federal in taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid.[3] Blue states lost $8,916 per capita, while red states gained $8,499 per capita – a difference of $17,415. I can assure you that the great state of Massachusetts would be delighted to see fairness and equity restored, and our share of the tax burden lowered to parity with the red states’ share – but instead, we’ll go on helping to support the lairs of the party which, having spat upon all efforts to pass the stimulus package, will now line up, hands out, demanding their share (however disproportionate) of the despised pork. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/67 "2009-02-15T15:42:00Z")
Hey, that’s not pork! That’s bacon salt! Mmmmmm, bacon salt! ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/68 "2009-02-15T15:52:17Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I would venture to guess that none of the 535 members of Congress are traitors. > > Perhaps that’s just me. I agree – but there are plenty of people on the SDNB saying that the bubs voting against the stimulus are terrible, horrible people acting from base motives, putting partisanship or careerism above the obvious good of the country. I was just asking if that also applied to the 11 dems who voted against the original bill or the 7 who voted against the final. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/69 "2009-02-15T16:37:07Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Obama has made a serious effort to reach out to Republicans but it hasn’t been reciprocated. The basic problem is that the Republican party isn’t a serious party of governance any more; more a collection of assorted nutcases and hacks: theocons, neocons, supply-siders etc. This was illustrated by the alternative plan voted for by the Senate Republicans which received 36 votes which was all tax cuts and no spending. A lot of these tax cuts would have little immediate impact on the economy and they would .. surprise .. disproportionately benefit the wealthy. It was a profoundly unserious act at a time of serious economic crisis. > > Contrast that to the Obama plan which ,in addition to spending, contained serious tax cuts right from the begining and not just as a concession to the Senate moderates. He has received serious heat from liberals like Krugman who argued that he was negotiating with himself but IMO his strategy has basically worked. He has gotten most of what he wanted and though he probably won’t get a bi-partisan vote he is widely perceived by the public as having made a serious effort to reach out to the Republicans. For example there is a CNN poll which shows that 74% think he has done enough to work with Republicans but only 39% think the Republicans have done enough to work with Obama. > > BTW it’s quite amusing to watch commentators on the right working themselves into a frenzy at every supposed setback to Obama and every slightly negative poll while ignoring every sign that Obama is actually doing quite well. I suspect it’s going to be a long 8 years of teeth-gnashing for them. +1 Also, allow me to add that anyone in the public who has paid attention is pretty mystified by the Republican’s sudden deep concern over “reckless spending” when that was pretty much the hallmark of their reign during the past 8 years. Call me crazy, but faced with the choice of “recklessly spending” to blow up Iraq for no particular gain or to spend a bunch of money in a way that may actually help us avert Great Depression Part II, I think I’d choose the latter option. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/70 "2009-02-15T16:57:37Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I agree – but there are plenty of people on the SDNB saying that the bubs voting against the stimulus are terrible, horrible people acting from base motives, putting partisanship or careerism above the obvious good of the country. I was just asking if that also applied to the 11 dems who voted against the original bill or the 7 who voted against the final. I’m probably the wrong person to discuss this then, as I see nothing wrong with partisanship - that’s the way the system works. I believe that the bulk of those who voted for the plan and the bulk of those who voted against the plan sincerely believe that their vote was the best thing for the country. There’s a reason there are two parties, after all. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/71 "2009-02-15T19:49:20Z")
> [@Crocodiles\_And\_Boulevards](#): > > Thanks for just proving that you don’t actually have a basis for your argument beyond a “feeling.” > > Sure, you’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s clear you haven’t used many facts to come up with it. As to the 1% I used, I assumed that the programs you were talking about were included in the \>2% number we talked about earlier in the thread. Oh, and you also somehow managed to write up a large reply to my post without ever addressing a single argument in it. > > Funny how that works. > > EDIT: Also, just to clarify, **you** are the one making a claim in this thread. Therefore the onus is on **you** to provide some kind of evidence or reasoning for your argument. Saying “I’ll pass” isn’t an argument. Gosh, **Crocodiles** , sorry to hear about your assumptions. As I said before (had you bothered to read), I think that the grants to the states were also wildly extraneous to the bill. I don’t want California to get back on its free-spending track and stay there. I want it to cut the fat. Since state grants make up a good part of the Bill, clearly I was not the one talking about one or two percent. That would be you. So the 1% number exists only in your head. Until you say what is in the 1%, I’m afraid you are the only one who can explain just what you are talking about. Next, I had said that job training gives much more immediate benefit to the economy than Head Start training. If you can’t understand that without further discussion and citations and numbers, you never will. To restate my central claim, it was that > [@](#): > > I think a Stimulus Bill should only contain things that actually provide short-term stimulus to the economy, and that Obama has not done himself or his party any favors by how he has handled the process. Can I prove that? No. Will further citations help? No. Either you think a Stimulus Bill should be just stimulus, or you think it tastes better with added pork. And either you think Obama helped or hurt himself and the Democrats by going along with the side that favors “New! With added bacon flavor!” Extra citations won’t help decide either of those one bit. Finally, you say I didn’t address “a single argument in” your post. My apologies, I didn’t notice you making any. Perhaps you could point them out and we could go on from there. ---
**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 15, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/72 "2009-02-15T20:51:39Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > [Blue states pay more than red states, get less back:](http://www.newrules.org/drdave/9-spending.html) > > I can assure you that the great state of Massachusetts would be delighted to see fairness and equity restored, and our share of the tax burden lowered to parity with the red states’ share – but instead, we’ll go on helping to support the lairs of the party which, having spat upon all efforts to pass the stimulus package, will now line up, hands out, demanding their share (however disproportionate) of the despised pork. Oh they will take it, but I noticed the Right wing blogs are accusing the Obama administration of forcing states to take the aid, overriding any governor’s decision not to take it. Sound the alarm, economic freedom is under attack. The resentment towards aid for states is rooted in ideology. It is less about money and more about annihilating any bastion of public spending and liberal thought. I honestly don’t believe Obama can overcome entrenched political and social forces to fund a true Keynesian recovery. Progressive economists agree that it will take trillions to resuscitate the economy, and federal money should be geared towards the poor who will spend it. Absent a social movement, I don’t think it is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/73 "2009-02-15T20:57:48Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Do you think his approval ratings will plunge to less than 50% in the next few months. I almost certainly do and it may happen very soon. No. For two reasons: firstly, a few months is far too short a time for the stimulus to take effect; secondly, he can safely blame it all on Bush. ---
**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 15, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/74 "2009-02-15T21:01:56Z")
> [@intention](#): > > As I said before (had you bothered to read), I think that the grants to the states were also wildly extraneous to the bill. I don’t want California to get back on its free-spending track and stay there. I want it to cut the fat Why are you singling out California when other states are in worse shape? Will you give examples of California’s free-spending? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/75 "2009-02-15T21:26:35Z")
> [@intention](#): > > First … depends on what you call “pork”. For me, the grants to the states are pork, and they are a huge part of the bill. California has been immensely and foolishly profligate with its money. Now y’all propose to bail them out, using my kid’s money. I disagree entirely. But the state grants are in fact intended as a significant part of the stimulus package; they aren’t just “pork” added on as an afterthought. [Paul Krugman](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/what-the-centrists-have-wrought/) argued strongly against calls for cuts to that part of the stimulus package: > [@](#): > > In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. Ethan Pollack at the [Economic Policy Institute](http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/cutting_state_aid_will_lead_to_a_longer_and_deeper_recession/%5B/url) (a rather [lefty-sounding think tank](http://www.epi.org/pages/about_the_economic_policy_institute/)) says the same thing: > [@](#): > > …aid to states is highly stimulative, providing $1.36 in economic benefit for every dollar in aid and 33% more effective than across-the-board tax cuts. Even [this guy at _Forbes_ Magazine](http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/03/economic-stimulus-package-business-washington-0204_stimulus.html) agress that the State Stabilization Fund is stimulative. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/76 "2009-02-15T21:58:32Z")
> [@Ocean\_Annie](#): > > Why are you singling out California when other states are in worse shape? Because it’s composed of filthy, filthy liberal hippies, no doubt. At least it is in the Right’s fevered imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/77 "2009-02-15T22:23:44Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I agree – but there are plenty of people on the SDNB saying that the bubs voting against the stimulus are terrible, horrible people acting from base motives, putting partisanship or careerism above the obvious good of the country. I was just asking if that also applied to the 11 dems who voted against the original bill or the 7 who voted against the final. It’s a fair bet that if you’re voting against your party, it’s not because you’re partisan. You don’t see anyone claiming that Snowe, Collins & Specter were voting based on partisan motives, do you? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/78 "2009-02-16T01:47:36Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > 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. :rolleyes: Look, it’s like voting funds to build a new highway: The **payoff** begins when the highway is completed and motorists can start using it. The **stimulus** begins when the first dollar is spent to hire the first construction worker. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/79 "2009-02-16T02:06:46Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > He closed down Gitmo? News to me. He announced that they intend to close down Gitmo in a year. We’ll see if that actually happens. But note that the result will not be the release of everyone there, but simply the creation of a new ‘Gitmo’ somewhere in the U.S. All detainees’ cases will be reviewed. Some will be given a fair trial and acquitted, some convicted. Those who are not released will be transferred into the federal prison system, on U.S. territory, where the full application of U.S. law regarding treatment of prisoners is not in question – an improvement, and what should have been done in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652/80 "2009-02-16T02:12:06Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > There’s some guys over at Blackwater, likely going to be on the labor market. Don’t worry, [this company](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=506469) will take their resumes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-obamas-approval-rating-going-to-plunge-into-the-toilet-at-record-speed/485652.md?page=5)