• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The first 100 days

What will be Presidents Obama approval rating on 1 May 09

  • 90+

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 81-89

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 71-80

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • 61-70

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • 51-60

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • 41-50

    Votes: 7 28.0%
  • 31-40

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 21-30

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 11-20

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • 0 -10

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .

KenH

Well-Known Member
If the incoming Obama administration keeps doing as well as it has with its cabinet appointments so far I expect Barack's approval rating to be in the 60s.
 

JustChristian

New Member
Revmitchell said:
I am with ya! :thumbs: So long as the Federal government is not part of it.

But the Federal government is an integral part of our Democracy. What would we have if we didn't have one? A Monarchy? A dictatorship? Without a federal government we wouldn't have a military. I think what you're saying is we need to reduce the size of the federal government to provide only necessary services. If we can figure out a way to provide medical care for more Americans and unemployment support (which I pay for in my pay check) without federal government support I'm all for it. At this point in my life I'm simply not willing to give up Social Security and Medicare. I paid into it for 35 years and I expect to get it in my retirement. If anyone wants to give them up to reduce our national debt of what $11T or $12T that would be great. (Actually including the country's debt for future Social Security and Medicare it's more like $67T.)
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
JustChristian said:
HTML:
But the Federal government is an integral 
part of our Democracy.
Keep in mind, we are not a democracy

HTML:
What would we have if we didn't have one? 
A Monarchy? A dictatorship
It has in essence become one with a career Congress

HTML:
Without a federal government we wouldn't 
have a military.
That is one of the few
things that is allowed by the Constitution.

HTML:
I think what you're saying is we need to 
reduce the size of the federal government to 
provide only necessary services.
YES, YES, YES - YOU GET IT

HTML:
If we can figure out a way to provide 
medical care for more Americans
Medical care is not the responsibility of the (federal) government - States maybe

HTML:
and unemployment support 
(which I pay for in my pay check) 
without federal government support 
I'm all for it.
actually you don't -
Your employer does but I do agree - it is a benefit you EARN - unlike food stamps, Medicaid, ect.

HTML:
At this point in my life I'm simply
not willing to give up Social Security and 
Medicare. I paid into it for 35 years and I 
expect to get it in my retirement.
I agree

If anyone wants to give them up to reduce our national debt of what $11T or $12T that would be great. (Actually including the country's debt for future Social Security and Medicare it's more like $67T.)


Obama has said he wants free college education - just one more step to socialism
 
Last edited by a moderator:

donnA

Active Member
Debby in Philly said:
My concern for right now is his first 5 - 10 days. He will probably issue executive orders on fetal stem cell research and abortion in foriegn aid. :tear:
I think you can count on it.
 

JustChristian

New Member
SALTCITYBAPTIST said:
Obama has said he wants free college education - just one more step to socialism

This question of Republic versus Democracy is an old one. Yes, you're right. We're a Republic rather than a Democracy. Big deal. The difference is we elect representatives to make decisions for us rather than deciding everything through a direct plebiscite. Didn't Bush say he wanted to install a Democracy in Iraq? He must have been wrong (as usual).

You said "It has in essence become one." One what? A monarchy or a dictatorship? I don't agree with either conclusion although the Neo-Cons certainly leaned towards a dictatorship.

So you say that we could have a military without a government? How would that work? I suppose feudal Lords could control small bands of armed soldiers each fighting for their own turf. Sounds like the gangs in NYC or LA.

When I corrected the initial post suggesting we didn't need a government by saying it should perform essential services that was my ideas not the original poster's. He still hasn't "got it."

You're almost right about employers paying unemployment insurance. In four states, New Jersey, PA, Alabama, and Alaska, employees paid but I think that's only true in NJ and Alaska today. Since I lived for a long time in one of those states I was mistaken.

Socialism is already here. It came with Bush's bailout.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
JustChristian said:
This question of Republic versus Democracy is an old one. Yes, you're right. We're a Republic rather than a Democracy. Big deal. The difference is we elect representatives to make decisions for us
In theory we elect - but in reality its politics as usual

You said "It has in essence become one." One what? A monarchy or a dictatorship?
Probably more like a dictatorship

So you say that we could have a military without a government?
No, that is not what I said - or at least what I meant. The point being the US Congress is doing too many things not allowed by the Constitution.


You're almost right about employers paying unemployment insurance. In four states, NJ, PA, Ala, and AK, employees paid but I think that's only true in NJ and Alaska today.
Was not aware of that - thanks
But thats part of States or Commonwealths rights!:thumbs:

Socialism is already here. It came with Bush's bailout.

Actually, we had socialism long long before Bush.
And no I am not justifying the Bailout, I am against it. (Thats right I disagree with "W")
Could it be that since we have had socialism for so long that Americans just consider that ideology a "right"
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Magnetic Poles said:
Public funding of education is not socialism. Public ownership of the means of production, is.

I dont have a problem with States or Commonwealth providing (free) public education I am opposed to the Federal Govt spending money on education.

In a broad sense Public education is socalism, the govt "owns" the schools. True capatalism would only allow for private schools.
 

BigBossman

Active Member
I'll be generous & say his approval rating will be between 51% & 60% by that time. The truth is he has a lot that needs to get done. If he doesn't deliver on what he promised, there's going to be a lot of angry folks.

I will say this, I will be one of those people. He's already established himself as being extremely liberal. Despite what he says, I know our taxes are going to skyrocket. I don't make $200,000 a year, but why should someone be penalized for being successful? When you put a tax on businesses, they end up passing the cost onto the customer. Everybody then ends up paying for it.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Well, here it is - the 100 day mark!

What actually is BO approval rating - its how you look at it.

One poll (Bloomberg) says 68 %

another poll ( Rasmussen Reports) says he is loosing ground from the link:
Seventy-six percent (76%) of African-Americans Strongly Approve along with 28% of white voters and 36% of all other voters. Among men, the President’s reviews are evenly divided—34% Strongly Approve and 34% Strongly Disapprove. Women offer a more positive assessment—36% Strongly Approve and 28% Strongly Disapprove (see other recent demographic highlights).
 

alatide

New Member
In my view, the following comparison betwee Obama and Reagan at the same point in their first term tells the story. Both faced severe recessions coming into office. I believe the 2007-? recession will prove to be much worse than the early 1980s recession.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ronald Reagan 55% (Oct 1981)

The early 1980s recession was a severe recession in the United States which began in December of 1980 and ended in November 1982.[1][2] It has been thought that the primary cause of the recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation.[3]

In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, stagflation began to afflict the economy of the United States. Unemployment had risen from 5.1% in January 1974 to a high of 9.0% in May 1975. Although it had gradually declined to 5.6% by May 1979, unemployment began rising again thereafter. It jumped sharply to 6.9% in April 1980 and to 7.5% in May 1980. A mild recession from January to July 1980 kept unemployment high, but despite economic recovery unemployment remained at historically high levels (about 7.5%) through the end of 1981.[4] Inflation, which had averaged 3.2% annually in the post-war period, had more than doubled after the 1973 oil shock to a 7.7% annual rate. Inflation reached 9.1% in 1975, the highest rate since 1947. Inflation declined to 5.8% the following year, but then edged higher. By 1979, inflation reached a startling 11.3% and in 1980 soared to 13.5%.[1][5]

A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[6]


Barack Obama 54% (Oct 5-11, 2009)


Beginning in the late 2000s (December 2007 in the United States according to the National Bureau of Economic Research)—and with much greater intensity since September 2008—the industrialized world has been undergoing a recession, a pronounced deceleration of economic activity. This global recession has been taking place in a economic environment characterized by various imbalances and was sparked by the outbreak of the financial crisis of 2007–2009. This recession has at times been referred to as "the Great Recession.

The financial crisis has been linked to reckless and unsustainable lending practices resulting from the deregulation and securitization of real estate mortgages in the United States.[2] The US mortgage-backed securities, which had risks that were hard to assess, were marketed around the world. A more broad based credit boom fed a global speculative bubble in real estate and equities, which served to reinforce the risky lending practices.[3][4] The precarious financial situation was made more difficult by a sharp increase in oil and food prices. The emergence of Sub-prime loan losses in 2007 began the crisis and exposed other risky loans and over-inflated asset prices. With loan losses mounting and the fall of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008, a major panic broke out on the inter-bank loan market. As share and housing prices declined many large and well established investment and commercial banks in the United States and Europe suffered huge losses and even faced bankruptcy, resulting in massive public financial assistance.

A global recession has resulted in a sharp drop in international trade, rising unemployment and slumping commodity prices. In December 2008, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) declared that the United States had been in recession since December 2007.[5] Several economists have predicted that recovery may not appear until 2011 and that the recession will be the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[6][7] The conditions leading up to the crisis, characterised by an exorbitant rise in asset prices and associated boom in economic demand, are considered a result of the extended period of easily available credit,[8] inadequate regulation and oversight,[9] or increasing inequality.[10]

Fiscal and monetary policies have been significantly eased to stem the recession and financial risks. While this has renewed interest in Keynesian economic ideas, the recent policy consensus is for the stimulus to be withdrawn as soon as the economies recover to "chart a path to sustainable growth".[11][12][13]
 

Spear

New Member
Does BO actually have a current 83% approval rating?
HAHA, not on the baptist board, that's for sure :D.

That's interesting for me, as this board is the only board i attend to, where american people are in large majority. If you only read things here, like i do, you have the feeling that everyone in the USA country disapproves anything Barrack Obama does. Thanks !
 
Top