And for largely the same reasons.
So why do we keep hearing all this RW triumphalist braying about Obama’s plummeting approval ratings?
Probably for the same reason that LW triumphalist were braying about how Reagan’s numbers weren’t significant. In fact, LWer’s STILL bray about how Reagan wasn’t significant.
So…why are you surprised?
-XT
BTW, hereis a Gallup Daily that tracks Obama’s approval rating since February. I don’t really know why the supposed connect between Reagan and Obama is important to you BG…or why you think that their numbers are significant.
-XT
Because the RW keeps throwing all that in our faces at every turn.
Pretty ironic, no? 
-XT
Ironic for them, maybe. I don’t think liberals deny Reagan was fairly popular, though, in spite of the criminality of his administration.
What’s more ironic is that Reagan’s economic policies were left of Obama’s, but Obama gets called a “socialist.”
Too funny.
-XT
But Obama doesn’t have a relatively balanced budget that allows him to enact a huge tax cut nor does he have the ability to slash double digit interest rates to spur economic growth. What Obama has to deal with is the end product of thirty years of Reaganist deregulation, free market ideology and twenty-odd years of supply-side pro-growth economic policies and it isn’t pretty.
And Nixon’s were left of Reagan’s, and Nixon got called a “fascist” (among many, many other things, most of them better-deserved).
Ain’t historical changes fascinating?
http://www.dailykos.com/ favorable Obama 55 percent-Unfavorable 42.
Left of Obama’s? You can’t be serious.
What do you think the highest tax bracket paid in income tax under Reagan? What do they pay under Obama?
Why do you think such a comparison is meaningful, DtC? Or are you simply trying to play with the numbers to prove…what?
-XT
That Reagan was a big-taxing, big-government politician, but somehow this is overlooked by the right?
Man, these leftist tropes never die.
The richest 30% of Americans pay a larger share of overall taxes than they do in all but 2 of the OECD nations.
Depends how you measure it, but by pretty much any measure, the rich pay more in taxes today than they did under Reagan. The marginal rate was 28% under Reagan - now it’s 35%. The total wealth held by the top 5% of Americans has declined since Reagan’s last term. I know you know this, because I posted the data and there was a long debate over it - in response to you posting a flat-out untrue statement that 1% of Americans had 99% of the wealth.
Back the Reagan comparison:
From the National Center for Policy Analysis:
So even with the Bush tax cuts, the poor pay less than half of what they used to pay in income tax, and the rich pay slightly more. When Bush’s tax cuts expire this year, the rich will pay far more in tax.
In fact, today the bottom 50% of Americans only pay 4% of the total income tax burden. The top 25% pay 83% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 65% of all income taxes, and the top 1% pay 35% of all income taxes. That’s an amazingly progressive system - far more progressive than it was in Reagan’s day. In fact, the U.S. is dangerously close to the point where the majority of the population pays no income tax at all - at which point they’ll have no reason to vote for ever-increasing taxes on the other half.
Seriously? Or are you whooshing me here? On the assumption that you are serious, did you not know that Reagan began the tax reforms that basically simplified the tax code and consolidated the various brackets? And this took until '86 to get implemented, and has been further refined and is still in place today. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing is beside the point.
So…it’s basically stupid and dishonest to point at the upper tax brackets under Reagan (that he inherited from Carter and previous presidents, and that was one of the things he ran on to change…and at least started the process to do so) and compare them to the one’s under Obama (which he essentially inherited, and has, thus far, had zero impact on).
I realize that the loony lefties want (badly) to compare Reagan to Obama (though I still am mystified as to why they would do so, since they spend some much effort bad mouthing Reagan), but we need to keep it real. Simply comparing the raw numbers is, at best, ignorant, and (as I suspect) at worst, it’s a deliberate attempt at dishonesty.
Let me give a partying theoretical comparison. Let’s say that Obama finally manages to get his health care plan implemented fully, but that it takes him until 2014 to get it fully up to speed. Then, let’s say that some future Republican is elected president, and some future loony righty comes along and makes a comparison between the health care levels under Obama (who implemented the program) and this future Republican president (who basically just inherited the current levels). Would you say that it would be an honest comparison?
-XT
Sam, please don’t expect a reply from DTC for a while, he’s currently living a slow death what with Brown’s win and all.
Not really surprising that a sitting President is unpopular after his first year. What is odd, however, is that someone would focus on a President’s numbers of more than 30 years ago.
xtisme’s link shows him at 50% approve, 43% disapprove.
And Reagan took office in 1981.
The funking irony. Before I bother explaining why your answer is complete misleading rubbish and you do your ritual running away from debating me, it would appear from your post that you’re OK with the rich paying a little bit more than under Reagan and the tax system generally becoming more progressive? Would you care to confirm that that’s the case or are you just going to take to your virtual heels as usual?
The same reason you’d hear the same from the left if McCain was in this situation? The same reason you heard the same from Democrats back when Reagan was President?
Essentially, people gloat when the opposition struggles, it’s always been this way. It’s the same reason Ohio State fans reveled in seeing Michigan lose to IAA Appalachian State, even though it was a game that had no direct impact on OSU at all.
In 1981 there was absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Ronald Reagan would turn things around and see his approval numbers go in the other direction. There is, in 2010, no guarantee Obama will do this either. I think maybe you’re looking to Reagan because he’s popular amongst conservatives, so you can mentally soothe any doubts you might have about Obama’s Presidency thus far. However, as a right winger I’ll tell you that a great deal of luck played into Reagan having the legacy that he has, and there’s no guarantee of Obama being treated the same way by history.
Things Reagan had going for him:
-
The recession hit its worst period (in terms of unemployment) in 1982, and after then the economy started a significant recovery. Reagan implemented a wide range of economic policies before this, and he was able to reap the credit for the recovery. [I have no interest in debating whether he deserved the credit, I’m talking about perception and the political situation, where the truth of the matter is not always the same thing as what controls public reaction.]
-
Reagan’s approval ratings weren’t as important as Obama’s, his relatively low approval ratings (after the assassination attempt) didn’t significantly hamper his political efforts. In the current political climate, Congress has shown it is less than willing to support the President in the face of falling approval rating numbers. In general I think this metric of Presidential politics was just simply less important in 1982 than it is in 2010.
-
Reagan eventually had the benefit of running against one of the worst Democrat Presidential candidates in the history of the the party, and one of the least effective Presidential candidates int he history of United States politics.
Another thing to keep in mind is at this point in Reagan’s Presidency (one year in), his approval ratings actually continued to fall into 1983, so if Obama’s Presidency is to mirror that of Reagan’s, his numbers will continue to slide. Given the increased importance of approval ratings and the potential outcome of the midterm elections if Obama’s approval ratings follow that trend will be much more disastrous for Obama than Reagan’s situation was for him. Obama has no real guarantees about the economy, we’ll see a recovery but we’ve yet to see a great increase in new jobs.