Finally, after five long months of the Obama administration, the American people are waking up. They have been in a political slumber as the new President has been racing to the left and extending government involvement in more and more areas of the private sector. After the most ambitious and dangerous agenda of any President in U.S. history, Americans are increasingly questioning the direction of the Obama administration.
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the approval rating for Barack Obama has dropped from 64% to 56%, a significant decline for a politician who receives constant media coverage. Obama is the most televised President of all time and has received the most positive coverage of any occupant of the Oval Office. Yet, despite the cheerleading from the Obama obsessed media, the public is becoming concerned about the direction of this White House.
Here are some of the poll results:
69% are concerned about increased government intervention in the economy
58% believe that the government should focus more on controlling the budget deficit than on boosting the economy
53% disapprove of the government’s expensive bailout of General Motors and Chrysler
According to Chuck Todd, NBC News White House Correspondent and Political Director, “The honeymoon is coming to an end for President Obama.” Well, it’s about time! This country is a center-right nation and the people of America should be outraged by the socialist direction of President Obama.
The reason there has not been more outrage is that the media has been so supportive. The latest example occurred this week when ABC News announced that the network would broadcast a health care program live from the White House. Other views and plans will not be allowed. This follows the disgusting two day tour of the White House by Brian Williams of NBC News, who acted like an excited tourist getting a lecture from a tour guide.
The positive coverage is almost non-stop for it is impossible for people to turn on a television without seeing Barack Obama. Even liberal comedian Bill Maher admitted that he is sick of seeing Obama on TV and said John McCain’s characterization of Obama as a “celebrity” was correct.
I sense that the public dissatisfaction with Obama will continue to grow in the weeks ahead. The American people are not in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, a cap and trade energy program, destroying the secret ballot for union members and nationalizing a good portion of our health care industry. The President’s worldwide apology tour, his deficits, his $787 billion stimulus plan, and his budget stuffed with 9,000 earmarks, is just the beginning.
Obama wants to cut the missile defense program, which is the only way to protect this nation from a madman like Kim Jong-Il. He has no plan to deal with the North Korean dictator, no plan to deal with the stolen vote in Iran, no plan to deal with a resurgent Russia. Obama has claimed that we should not “meddle” in the affairs Iran, but has no problem meddling in the affairs of Israel, the only democracy in the region.
The list of outrages and the extent of his liberalism will be even more apparent in the days ahead, so it will be no surprise to see Obama’s poll numbers continue to drop. He’ll really start to have a problem when the media decides to finally do their job and inform the American people about what is really happening in this country.
nice post. I would love to follow you on twitter. Written by amazon coupon
on 2/15/2010
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Al, I am a "kook" who thinks that the big money in this country - banking and oil primarily - OWN both parties. They have their "bought and paid for politicians" run the country for their benefit first, the "benefits" they bestow upon the people is primarily "smoke and mirrors." So call me a "conspiracy kook" if you will, but the "bull" in this conversation is calling me a conservative or a racist. Many Americans have debt that is twice their annual income. That's very unwise. The debt that this country has created since the 1980's is insane. I don't care "who did it" or "why it was done" - it is foolish, wrong and stupid. Do you undrstand that we pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year in interest? Think of the good things (repairing bridges before they collapse as but one example) this money could be doing. The sane thing would be to pay down the debt, not add to it. Although I vote for Bush in 2000 (primarily so he would appoint pro-gun Supreme Court justices), I did not in 2004, primarily due to his expansionist policies and deficit spending. This spending and debt is going to hurt us, our children and grandchildren. It's a damn shame. Written by kpf
on 6/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"The taxpayers actually make money on those deals". You're serious right? We are not stockholders, stockholders vote on who runs the corporation. Why is it that several banks did not want the TARP money, but were forced to take it. Also, several "loan" recipients wanted to repay the loans, but Treasury said no. The time limit for blaming former administrations is over. Written by CN
on 6/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KPF...you're stepping in your own bull. If it was about policies, then how did you and others back Bush in his relentless effort to bring this country down. Not one but 2 terms. 8 years , not 8 months. And why are you and all your conservative cohorts so worried about the money going to the banks and the auto companies? Those are loans, not gifts. And most banks are in position to pay them back. The taxpayers actually make money on those deals. Stop the senseless rhetoric. You watched Bush and his regime for 8 years taking this country down. Now all of a sudden you guys are so sure that Obama is wrong, only 8 months into his first term. You may think it's not about pigmentation. It's nothing but. If it was about bad policies Bush would have never had a second term. Written by Al
on 6/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Al,Al,Al. The policies of the Federal Reserve have been in place since early last century. They print money and set interest rates to keep the economy on an even keel. When they fail things get "bad" economically. Both parties contributed to this mess by meddling in the economy. Everyday people contributed to this mess by taking on too much debt and not saving enough. Despite Democrats opposing moving Social Security funds into stocks because stocks are volitile (I agree) many funds (for retired teachers unions, etc.) invested most or all of their funds in stock - and they lost their a$$ in the stock market. They too contributed to this mess. So it wasn't just "Bush's policies" that caused this mess - we ALL did. While Keynesian economic theory advocates limited ("limited") short term stimulus spending (usually on infrastructure) followed by returning to a surplus (important!!) the current adminstration is planning to spend trillions of dollars with deficits .. well... no end to deficits and additionally MOST of this spending is neither "soon" nor "infrastructure" repair but instead contains such tripe as Americorps funding, ACORN funding, and other liberal wish list funding under the guise of being "stimulus" spending. I am against increasing the debt no matter if it is the Democratic Party - or the GOP -or Jesus - or my dead daughter come back from the dead who advocates it - I'm against it, p-e-r-i-o-d. I am against government bailout failing financial institutions and auto makers, I am against this man's policies, not his skin color. It appears that more and more of the public is also disapproving of what the Democrats are planning to do. Good, because the things they are doing and planing on doing are counter productive. The strongest force in "economics" is consumer choice. Government cannot dictate economic activity, despite what socialists, communists and this administration - or any Federal Reserve Chairman in the history of the Federal Reserve System believes. We make winners and losers by whre we CHOOSE to spend our money. That's why WalMart kill Mom and Pop stores, because WE the people choose to spend our money at WalMart. What should government do about the "crises" of the loss of Mom & Pop stores - bail them out with taxpayer dollars or "do nothing?" The correct answer for the Mom & Pop stores, the financial institutions, GM, etc., etc. is "do nothing" - that will be best in the long run as it won't use future generations' money to prop up businesses that are failing due to rejection by consumers. No hyperinflation, no additional 400 billion each and every year WASTED on interest payments to China and Japan, no expansion of government, no increase in taxes; just the normal rise and fall of businesses (a.k.a."creative destruction"). Policies, not pigmentation is what we oppose in this administration. (and before you compare him to Bush or the GOP, I think the GOP sucks as well, so don't bother going there). Written by kpf
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
George Bush and his band of thieves start a war that drains the country. Followed by 8 years of failed lopsided economic policies, and Obama can't fix it in 8 months, or even 4 years. We should oust him right now. Yes we should hold the black President to a higher standard then his white predecessors. After all he's more intelligent then the previous cabinet combined. Impeach him now!
Written by Al
on 6/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It is not about personalities or political parties or pointing the finger of blame - it is simply that deficit spending is taking care of today's problems with tomorrow's money. It is wrong when Obama does it, it was wrong when Bush did it, it was wrong when Reagan did it, it would be wrong if my Mon-n-nem did it. It's wrong. It is unsustainable. It makes for an ever increasing (over four hundred billion dollars today) amount of interest which is money collected each year that accomplishes absolutely nothing positive for our people. Obama is spending more than money; he's draining his party's political capital. Not that I'm complaining about that, mind you. The "Bush" is to blame tripe is hardly worthy of a response. The “Community Reinvestment Act" had far more to do with the economic crises than anything George Bush or anyone in his administration had to do with this government created crises. Please don't even bother to call this government coercion a "failure of free market capitalism" as it was nothing more than liberal meddling in economic matters (benefiting both their poorer voting base and their Wall St. campaign contributors, with the taxpayer’s providing the insurance if things went wrong; which it did). This problem will not be fixed by devaluing the dollar, quadrupling our debt or funneling money to either ACORN or the UAW. There is still plenty of time for even more disenchantment to grow concerning this administration before the mid-term elections. Sweet. Written by kpf
on 6/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that Obama did not invent the federal deficit being the size that it is out of whole cloth. It was not as if under Bush there was not a large federal deficit and then only now there is. A lot of what's going on is that economic trends are now magnifying the effect of Bush's policies, i.e. the economic recession (which DID get started while Bush was still in office) is making for diminished tax receipts. Of course, Bush's tax cuts were supposed to unleash a glorious economic boom. What happened there? Yes, this does not absolve Obama from trying to be responsible. However, it's pretty disingenuous to be calling for Obama to be the super deficit hawk when the chances of anyone, GOP, Democrat or third party really implementing what would have to be done to erase the deficit are actually very, very low. For one thing, doing so would have to involve radical changes to Medicare, Social Security (although Medicare is much the more pressing issue) and then very many military base closings and military cutbacks both foreign and domestic. The usual suspects from the GOP point of view are domestic spending and entitlements for poorer people but I defy the conservatives to demonstrate that the thorny areas that will absolutely have to tackled are indeed not those I have enumerated. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If congress were actually "responsible" they would deal with the looming problems with Social Security. However there is a reason it is called "the third rail" of politics in our nation. "Responsible" - the public doesn't want to hear about what "the real story" is with the costs of Social Security or anything else - too bad Obama isn't taking the lead in being honest with the public about there being "no free lunch", we need this kind of leadership. You speak of Bush's debt, Bush's bailouts, but you fail to mention "degree." One may have a few hairs on ones comb throughout one's lifetime, but when hugh tufts of hair is on one's comb, it becomes a concern. So although Bush doubled the debt (which IMHO was both stupid and irresponsible) and bailed out the (big campaign contributors of BOTH political parties, Wall St.) which is nothing other than "wealth redistribution" from the middle class to the upper class, the fact that Obama continues - and even increases what Bush did is only an indictment of BOTH men. I fail to see how "Bush did it first" in any way justifies Obama doing it also. If something is wrong, it’s wrong. I am not an advocate or a fan of the GOP, it is simply that Obama is taking actions that will devalue the dollar, create more debt than ALL of the presidential administrations from George Washington to George W. Bush (quite an accomplishment, actually) and ruin the economy by making us a fascist state (defined as: A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life), and so I am against Obama’s initiatives and will look for an end to it through the peaceful political process we have. I truly wish the only alternative to Obama wasn’t the GOP. Nothing (politically) would make me happier than for a viable third party (one that actually follows the Constitution, if that’s not being too demanding) to emerge. Written by kpf
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If congress were actually "responsible" they would deal with the looming problems with Social Security. However there is a reason it is called "the third rail" of politics in our nation. "Responsible" - the public doesn't want to hear about what "the real story" is with the costs of Social Security or anything else - too bad Obama isn't taking the lead in being honest with the public about there being "no free lunch", we need this kind of leadership. You speak of Bush's debt, Bush's bailouts, but you fail to mention "degree." One may have a few hairs on ones comb throughout one's lifetime, but when hugh tufts of hair is on one's comb, it becomes a concern. So although Bush doubled the debt (which IMHO was both stupid and irresponsible) and bailed out the (big campaign contributors of BOTH political parties, Wall St.) which is nothing other than "wealth redistribution" from the middle class to the upper class, the fact that Obama continues - and even increases what Bush did is only an indictment of BOTH men. I fail to see how "Bush did it first" in any way justifies Obama doing it also. If something is wrong, it’s wrong. I am not an advocate or a fan of the GOP, it is simply that Obama is taking actions that will devalue the dollar, create more debt than ALL of the presidential administrations from George Washington to George W. Bush (quite an accomplishment, actually) and ruin the economy by making us a fascist state (defined as: A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life), and so I am against Obama’s initiatives and will look for an end to it through the peaceful political process we have. I truly wish the only alternative to Obama wasn’t the GOP. Nothing (politically) would make me happier than for a viable third party (one that actually follows the institution, if that’s not being too demanding) to emerge. Written by kpf
on 6/21/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that the GOP if they somehow came back into power would have to dismantle programs enacted by George W. Bush, in particular Medicare Part D. Also...packages aimed at automakers and the banks were instituted not by Obama but by initially by Bush, Paulson and co. But...people will have to make a choice. There IS a looming crisis in healthcare and Medicare. Deal with that or else deal with the federal deficit but not pretend that they can have it all. The fact of the Baby Boomer generation reaching a certain age makes it very difficult to envision that the people would opt to do not absolutely nothing about the healthcare/Medicare situation. What will be done is up in the air, however this is not 1994. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/20/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Obama is not going to fix debt with more debt. The things he is instituting will make things far worse, the Democrats will lose power sooner or later because of it. What the American public must do (those who vote the GOP back into power that is) is to demand from the GOP that - instead of their usual expanding of programs put in place by previous Democratic administrations and congresses - that they dismantle as much of what Obama has put in place as possible. Or perhaps things will just roll merrily along for the Democrats, time will tell. Written by kpf
on 6/20/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that if people expect Obama to get the economy going and also make the deficit go away overnight that's simply not realistic and not reasonable given what he inherited. The size of the deficit is heavily on account of Bush's policies though Obama's policies have added some to it. Nonetheless Obama appears to be, however, quite realistic, intelligent and practical and much more so than his predecessor and thus sensitive to the whole picture. He's also probably cognizant of that the Republicans' poll ratings aren't anything special, either, but that may well leave him the opening to sell the people on having to actually make the sacrifice that will have to be made. The American people cannot sustain being so conflicted, wanting it all and wanting it now (the Baby Boomer generation's perhaps favorite president, Ronald Reagan, essentially sold them on how they could essentially have it all with his pleasant actor's voice and charm and George W. Bush continued with that mindset carrying it to an extreme with the country carrying on multiple costly, drawn-out wars and enacting king-size tax cuts, too). If Obama tells the people what they need to hear as opposed to just what they want to hear will that doom him to being a one-termer? As for Congress, everyone always hates the body as a whole but thinks that their own representative is just fine. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/20/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think they underestimate the opposition growing to this administration, but perhaps I'm wrong. The midterm elections will be reflect which it is. Actually third party gains may be record setting in 2010; but a viable third party candidate for president in 2012 may only ensure a split among those who oppose Obama's reelection. Much of Obama's planned spending takes place after 2012 (the man is not stupid) so the voters may not "feel the pain" until after his reelection. Also, don't be surprised if the Democrats try to change the law to allow Obama to serve more than 2 terms. Written by kpf
on 6/20/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I feel like happy dancing because hopefully the American people will wake up and clean out Congress. These entrenched politicians have become aloof and consider themselves not to be public servants anymore. The public is their servant. Miss Boxer telling the general to address her as Senator and not Ma'am, really now. Obama's policies scare me. Czars everywhere and they are not accountable to the people. Chris Dodd blows off the Congressional Budget Office and their predictions, do you really think they care about us? They'll start using the administrations budget office to start justifying the ridiculus debt that keeps growing. Also, with this power grab that is escalating...has anyone noticed that nothing, yes nothing, has been done about the problems at Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The two instigators of the current economic tsunami. Heck, go to Recovery dot com and see if you can find the 1,000+ page stimulus bill... And now they want to ram health care reform/takeover down our throats. But social security, medicare, and medicade are insolvent and broken, why not fix these problems before taking on more? Yes, I'm still happy dancing. P.S. - the polls have shown a downward turn in Mr. Obama's approval ratings for months now. Written by CN
on 6/19/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In many ways I respect and agree with Barak Obama. The debt his (perhaps overly optimistic) projections are four times greater than his predecessor. It is not about "opinions" concerning the debt it is the interest we pay annually on it. When Reagan left office we were paying 200 billion dollars in interest annually. This is money that the taxpayer pays each year - that accomplishes nothing - NOTHING. When Bush left last year our annual interest was 400 billion per year. Obama's "best case" (unrealistic) scenario will have us paying $800,000,000,000 per year in interest. That is $800,000,000,000 each year that has to be taken from taxpayers to pay INTERSET to China and others who buy T-bills to cover our deficit spending. A more realistic figure is over one trillion dollars per year simply to pay interest. All this without paying off a penny of the "principle" - our debt. Dude, that is frigging CRAZY. I don't care about "personalities" or "political party' - this is going to mean that we - the taxpayers - will pay a trillion dollars and get "squat" for it - each and every year. Either you understand how harmful that is - or you do not. Written by kpf
on 6/19/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that Obama was elected to handle the economy, to do something and not just stand there and do nothing. It's hard to buy into that all of a sudden people don't care about the economy but they do care about the federal deficit more (especially when for years there hasn't been that much concern about the federal deficit). Are the American people conflicted? They seem to want it all and want it now. The Baby Boomer generation seems to have demonstrated a lack of understanding about or willingness to endure sacrificing. Is the problem so much teenagers in the ghetto having children that they can't care for? Sure, that's an issue--and I believe that even Obama has spoken out forcefully about the issue there (and I strongly believe that the response to deal with that issue is that as people become better educated and also have a good job they seem to have fewer children that they can't care for). But the greater issue seems to be the overall white and black and green and yellow Baby Boomer generation desire to have it all. The federal deficit will not be done away with without getting rid of something that a whole lot of people will become mighty upset about. There's no easy answer, especially with the economy as it is, and items such as the stimulus program and the takeover of the auto-makers while they are factors in the size of the deficit that's not what's causing it as much as the overall trend in the economy of decreased activity in a recession bringing about decreased tax receipts (surpluses were projected before, albeit wrongfully, because in other times people thought that the economy would keep humming along). The hope is that the economy will recover. That alone will make a major difference in the federal fiscal picture. Beyond that, however, some kind of painful choice will have to be made. In particular, Medicare. That's the biggest problem area, with the Baby Boomer generation entering the times of their lives when getting medical treatment and being covered for it will matter a lot, and a worse problem than Social Security and also a very significant factor in the federal deficit picture. Get rid of all the welfare, social programs for the poor and so on that one cares to and still the looming presence of Medicare will be there in the federal fiscal picture and figures to dwarf all the other things. One can probably easily predict, also, that this country's military approach will have to change out of necessity. But Medicare will be the no. 1 headache (and it was Bush, not Obama, who spearheaded the highly costly Part D program). Obama is quite correct that there has to be some kind of health care overhaul. It's hard to fault him on that, even if his approach on other issues has been wrong because Medicare costs and health care costs overall are about to explode -- and even if people don't have insurance those are who are insured still have to pay for their basic treatment. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Real story - aka "reality" must consider all options. Such as ... the economy doing well or poorly may have nothing to do with the sitting (or previous) president's policies. I am not counting upon the GOP to stop Obama from spending too much, limiting healthcare options for those of us who choose not to live in poverty (oh yes, it's a "choice" for all too many; getting pregnant while a teen <and not having an abortion>; dropping out of school; doing drugs instead of holding down a job <doing drugs and holding down a job is what I did for 19 years, so I guess I could leave the "doing drugs" out>) or delaying commonsense energy options like nuclear power and additional drilling in our backyard for much more expensive nonsense like wind and solar power ("nonsense" if one relies upon them to the exclusion of cheaper and more plentiful options) but rather opposition within his own party. Here's how that works: people in 'swing' districts give their Democratic representatives grief; the reps gather additional support in congress. Fiscal sanity resumes. I have no problem with limited socialism, but trillions of dollars in additional debt is lunacy. George W.Bush was a fool to allow record debts, Obama's plan to increase that previously high record debt by a factor of four makes him even dumber than George W. Bush; quite an accomplishment actually. Lastly, what makes you think that government "needs to do something" to make the economy better? "Do nothing" is yet another option as it is sometimes the right thing to do. As a previous poster said, "The leading cause of problems are solutions" - such as Bush's solution in Iraq (yet another example of "doing nothing" being better than the "solution"). Written by kpf
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
all of this whining about now trying to stop Obama is pretty silly. What is the opposition going to do? A recall election? Impeachment? A coup d'etat? The Democrats and Obama won the election, they have control and it's their turn at bat now. Bush and co. had their turn before and in fact failed to deliver for the good of the nation (no one disputes that the economic problems started on Bush's watch). The only thing to do is to sit back and see if the party in power can and does deliver the goods. Now, if, say, a year passes and prospects still appear to be poor then there's possibly a case to be made. After only 5 months, no. Written by The Real Story is
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
About damn time they start waking up. I hope we can stop this man before it's too late. Written by Nana
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
that if the economy is at least starting to make progress in a couple of years Obama will probably benefit from that and be re-elected and if it doesn't then he will get blamed. Fair enough. Also, what exactly is the alternative vision being offered by the other party? More tax cuts? All of Bush's tax cuts did almost nothing but place more money in the pockets of the very rich while job opportunities and income and quality of life for the working class did not significantly improve. Moreover, the tax cuts coupled with the wars and national security spending coupled with the prescription drug benefits program represent a major cause of the federal budget deficits that all of a sudden people are concerned with (news flash: Lyndon Johnson was the last president to submit a balanced budget to Congress). Republicans in general BTW aren't scoring very well and are indeed held in even lower esteem than Obama is. Then there's the question of which candidate in particular that they will come up with. Jindal? Sarah Palin? Newt Gingrich? Romney? Huckabee? Written by The Real Story is
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The leading cause of problems are solutions..................... Written by
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
No this is not a happy dance….. Please President Obama, turn away from your impractical philosophies… Written by
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Other recent polls you neglected to mention show Obama's approval in the low 60s. There you go again Jeff, rushing to judgment after just 5 months. A lot of what you "sensed" in the past about Obama never came to pass. It's going to take some time to straighten out the mess left by the GOP but progress is being made. Written by David Quidd
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Happy dance! Happy dance! People are opening their eyes! Written by CN
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
A bit of "perspective" here on just how radical Obama is: I am far to the left of you Mr. Crouere, nevertheless Obama is way too far to the left for my tastes. Hopefully there will be some "awarkening" in the Democratic rank and file in congress to limit the damage this man can do. Written by kpf
on 6/18/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
