President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    15,290

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Rep Points
    835205615


    President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush

    This one's gotta hurt. President Obama's approval rating has dipped below, gulp, George W. Bush.

    The ex-President's approval rating rose to 47% in recent weeks according to a Gallup poll released Monday, which is one point higher than Obama's rating in a survey also taken this week.

    The poll results represent a surprising rebound for the once fiercely unpopular Bush, whose approval rating was just 25% just a little over a year ago.

    Politico speculates the unexpected boomerang could be a result of the positive reviews Bush's recently released memoir, "Decision Points," has received in addition to the former commander-in-chief's opening of a presidential library in Texas.

    That coupled with criticism over Obama's handling of the economy and stinging Democratic losses in the midterm elections, may have affected Americans' views of the President.

    Before the release of his memoir, Bush had a 44% approval rating. The most recent survey numbers mark the highest for him since 2005 - before Hurricane Katrina - CBS News reported. Bush's highest rating was 87%, immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

    Still, it's not all good news for the former President. His disapproval rating, (51%) is still higher than his approval rating, a similarity he shares with Richard Nixon, whose approval rating is just 29%.

    Obama's disapproval rating (47%) is just one point higher than his approval rating.

    John F. Kennedy remains the most popular President in Gallup's annual poll with 85% approval. Ronald Reagan came in second with 74%, followed by Bill Clinton's 69%.

    ashahid@nydailynews.com



    Read more: President Barack Obama's approval rating is below George W. Bush: Gallup Poll
    .

  2. #2
    Board Rep
    BOARD REP
    irish_2003's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    on the boards
    Posts
    5,240

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Rep Points
    328825776


    i never ever doubted for a second that Barry Hussein would be rated the worst president ever.......he is very good at getting individuals together in the ghetto in the projects and getting more free shit from taxpayers and hardworker americans though

  3. #3
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Age
    42
    Posts
    5,920

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Rep Points
    604462801


    He'll be a one termer fo sho. He's Jimmy Carter Jr. If he runs to the center, like Bill, he might have a chance. But, I don't see that happening. His liberal base would be irate.

  4. #4
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,312

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Rep Points
    1002190314


    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    He'll be a one termer fo sho. He's Jimmy Carter Jr. If he runs to the center, like Bill, he might have a chance. But, I don't see that happening. His liberal base would be irate.
    not if Palin runs and wins the GOP nomination...the more she talks the less any people want here anywhere near another political office. only the far right likes to elect idiots to office.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Age
    42
    Posts
    5,920

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Rep Points
    604462801


    She won't get it. But, IDK about only far right electing idiots. If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.

  6. #6
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,312

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Rep Points
    1002190314


    Quote Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf View Post
    She won't get it. But, IDK about only far right electing idiots. If that's the case, explain why Pelosi is back in as house minority leader.
    would have been nice if GWB had left the next POTUS some actual money to work with but that has always been the trend. GOP POTUS run up great deficits then the DEM POUTS have to come in and try to clean up the mess. we would be the exact same economic situation if not worst if McCain and the retard had won. the fact that GWB created the least amount of jobs of any pres since WWII certainly hasn't helped out the employment situation. Obama didn't have a chance as the grand old pussies stated when he won they were going to do whatever it takes to see him fail, apparently that means screwing the average american for the sake of politics.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  7. #7
    primeau
    lnvanry's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Tucson
    Age
    34
    Posts
    4,267

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    54346477


    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    would have been nice if GWB had left the next POTUS some actual money to work with but that has always been the trend. GOP POTUS run up great deficits then the DEM POUTS have to come in and try to clean up the mess. we would be the exact same economic situation if not worst if McCain and the retard had won. the fact that GWB created the least amount of jobs of any pres since WWII certainly hasn't helped out the employment situation. Obama didn't have a chance as the grand old pussies stated when he won they were going to do whatever it takes to see him fail, apparently that means screwing the average american for the sake of politics.
    Its not a GOP trend...its a modern president trend. Clinton was the outlier




    I'm not blindly defending the GOP, but you come off as so jaded against the GOP that you blindly endorse the "other option"....which really isn't much different at when it comes to the two biggest issues: monetary policy and foreign policy.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Age
    42
    Posts
    5,920

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Rep Points
    604462801


    Once again, sounds like two wrongs somehow make a right. If Bush let spending get out of control, somehow that makes it a good thing when Obama takes it to an unprecedented level. If he's trying to clean anything up, why is he not doing the opposite of what was done in the last admin? Why is unemployment still rising two years into this admin? Obama doesn't seem like he needs anyone's help as far as failing.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    15,290

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Rep Points
    835205615


    Extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy seals the raw deal for taxpayers

    So basically they would OK if the rich also got a tax break which they don't need....wow.
    Nice to know the GOP's priority but then again if they don't give the pampered breaks then they won't get the votes and gifts the rich give out.

    Throw down some beats, please. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner must be ready to shimmy after President Obama's compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

    Call it the tax-break dance. And set it to a James Brown soundtrack:

    "I got mine and don't worry 'bout his

    Get on up and shake your moneymaker!

    Yeah, shake your moneymaker!"

    Yep, individuals who make over $200,000 a year won't have to give that extra 4% to Uncle Sam. That includes all the billionaires on the Forbes 400 list - and 4% of a billion adds up.

    Our lawmakers aren't listening. Last week, 50% of Americans The Associated Press and CNBC polled said they wanted Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to end Dec. 31.

    Conservatives might argue, and the folks who sent stocks briefly soaring Tuesday would seem to agree; you know, the rich will spend this government bonus and it'll trickle down on us.

    Let's follow the money:

    You're a rich guy and with the tax breaks, you're going to stay that way. Where do you go? Manhattan Motor Cars, of course, to pick up the 2011 - Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera.

    It's only $262,655. Jeff Drajin, the company's manager of luxury brands, says the extension of the Bush tax cuts should make sales even better.

    "No fear of the unknown now," he says. "Customers know that, at least for the next two years, they'll have the tax cuts."

    Even in the depths of this year's recession, Drajin sold 20 Lambos.

    So what did he do with his pretty penny?

    "I bought a house," he says. "And I got Wolf and KitchenAid appliances."

    Okay, both are made in the U.S.A., but what about John Cuccolo, the 34-year-old salesman at Topline Appliances in Westfield, N.J., where Drajin made his buys?

    "I'm married, and we have a 2-year-old girl," Cuccolo says. "I have to be more cautious now. I'm going to save at least half of it."

    So the buck stops here. With the middle class. And that stinks!

    We're simply not getting our proportionate share, as people did after World War II. The distribution of wealth isn't a pyramid anymore - it's like a top-heavy mushroom.

    The Federal Reserve says last year the richest 25% of U.S. households owned 87% of all the wealth. The middle class - 50% - owned only 13%, and the poor - the bottom 25% - forget about it.

    Not all rich people are greedy. Warren Buffett followed his friend Bill Gates' lead and gave $31 billion to Gates' foundation to help children's health and education.

    So here's a challenge to the rich conservatives who pushed these tax breaks for people who don't need them: We challenge you to take some of your tax break and give it back to the Treasury.

    Thousands of Americans, from schoolchildren to ordinary workers, have done so. This year, they sent in $2,840,466.75. "Usually in amounts of 10, 20, 30 dollars," a Treasury spokeswoman says.

    Conservatives claim they're worried about the deficit, which as of Tuesday was damn near $14 trillion. They never seem to want to pay it off.

    They have what we call short-arms - they can't reach the table when the check comes. That deficit's gonna swell like Bristol Palin's stomach.

    But, they sing along with James Brown: "I got mine and don't worry 'bout his."

    jmolloy@nydailynews.com
    Read more: Extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy seals the raw deal for taxpayers

  10. #10
    Registered User
    bio-chem's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Utah
    Age
    36
    Posts
    9,211

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Rep Points
    350664776


    I hate the idea that because people have money that means that they should be taxed for it. the thought that the poor are somehow entitled to the riches money through taxation and government entitlements is so bassackwards stupid fucking thinking that it makes me sick. anyone want to tell me what percentage of taxes the richest 1% of americans pay as a percentage of the whole? The 200k and up club pay their "fair share", and the "fair share" of a lot of other people too. I'm realistic to understand that that is the only way the system is going to work. But demonizing the rich for being wealthy is such a load of shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    Sheep get their news from the media, I get my news from Facebook. That's where the real unbiased news is found. any everyone from IM that is friends with me on FB knows this.

  11. #11
    Board Rep
    BOARD REP
    irish_2003's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    on the boards
    Posts
    5,240

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Rep Points
    328825776


    if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately

  12. #12
    Registered User
    GearsMcGilf's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    AL
    Age
    42
    Posts
    5,920

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    11 Posts
    Rep Points
    604462801


    There's not a single economist who'd claim that raising taxes in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 75 years is healthy. Those evil rich are the very people that pay the majority of all Fed income tax and create the jobs. If the govt takes (and squanders, as it would) more cash out of circulation, it will stifle growth. Businesses particularly small to midsized ones, drive the economy. Therefore, if it's bad for business, it's bad for all of us; regardless of how much some on the left hate business.

    It seems many folks on the left couldn't care less what this tax increase would have had on the economy, but were more anxious to sock it to the wealthy. It's not like any of the additional revenue would've been used to pay off debt or shut off the deficit. Your taxes aren't going either, so quit moaning about what someone else is paying. It's NOYFB.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    15,290

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Rep Points
    835205615


    Quote Originally Posted by bio-chem View Post
    I hate the idea that because people have money that means that they should be taxed for it. the thought that the poor are somehow entitled to the riches money through taxation and government entitlements is so bassackwards stupid fucking thinking that it makes me sick. anyone want to tell me what percentage of taxes the richest 1% of americans pay as a percentage of the whole? The 200k and up club pay their "fair share", and the "fair share" of a lot of other people too. I'm realistic to understand that that is the only way the system is going to work. But demonizing the rich for being wealthy is such a load of shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by irish_2003 View Post
    if i was in the "rich" bracket and taxed more, i definitely would look into moving my businesses overseas.....americans have been spoiled with "funny money" for the last 40 years....now it's time to cut spending/borrowing and pay up......wah wah wah dems.....america IS NOT A HOUSING PROJECT.......but we are a WELFARE NATION unfortunately
    Who is talking about more taxes for the rich which I am sure neither of the two are, my opinion is that they don't need this tax break now....I am pretty sure they are not starving.

    This was actually a decent year for us money wise, we almost made 200k and we are about to buy a house.......in NYC, where the taxes are one of the highest.
    Trust me, I don't hate on the rich....I don't think they need it as bad as some of the middle class.

    Irish, that's a part of the reason we are hurting. Those bastards already sent middle and low class jobs overseas.

  14. #14
    Creator of Chaos
    MODERATOR
    juggernaut's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    11,422

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points
    319172539


    I used to have a network admin job that was done in NJ. The fucking economy went to shit right after 911 and then my job was handed over to a jerkoff that cant say America and lives a third world country because it's cheaper to pay him.
    Disclaimer: All health, fitness, diet, nutrition, anabolic steroid & supplement information posted here is intended for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended as a substitute for proper medical advice from a medical doctor. We do not condone the use of anabolic steroids (AAS), all information about AAS is for educational and entertainment purposes only. If you choose to use AAS it's your responsibility to know the laws of the country that you live in. Consult your physician or health care professional before performing any of the exercises, or following any diet, nutrition or supplement advice described on this website.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    ELITE MEMBER
    min0 lee's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Bronx, NYC
    Age
    51
    Posts
    15,290

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Rep Points
    835205615


    You guys do know that they have their own interests at hand, these guys are only looking out for themselves.....not you Bio nor Irish. Open your eyes.


    How the White House cut its deal and lost its base
    By Ezra Klein


    If you look at the numbers alone, the tax cut deal looks to have robbed Republicans blind. The GOP got around $95 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans and $30 billion in estate tax cuts. Democrats got $120 billion in payroll-tax cuts, $40 billion in refundable tax credits (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit and education tax credits), $56 billion in unemployment insurance, and, depending on how you count it, about $180 billion (two-year cost) or $30 billion (10-year cost) in new tax incentives for businesses to invest.

    But that's not how it's being understood. Republicans are treating it as a victory, and liberals as a defeat. Which raises two separate questions: Why did Republicans give Obama so much? And why aren't Democrats happier about it?

    Let's start with the Republicans. For one thing, the things they wanted were things they really, really wanted. A number of sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have fingered the estate tax as the major player in the size of the deal. "Republicans were extremely eager to get benefits for the top tenth of a percent of Americans," says one senior administration official.

    It was the estate tax, in this telling, that secured Republican support for, among other things, the two-year extension of the refundable tax credits and the payroll tax cut. Republicans believe that the two-year extension of the estate tax at Lincoln-Kyl levels will turn into a permanent extension of the estate tax at Lincoln-Kyl levels. So they attached much more importance to it than the price tag might suggest.

    And it went beyond the estate tax: Conservatives saw the extension of the tax cuts as an important pivot point in American politics -- full stop. As my colleague Jennifer Rubin puts it, Republicans "won the philosophical point (tax hikes impede economic growth) and, candidly, are more than delighted to have a repeat of this debate for the presidential campaign in 2012." The Obama administration didn't see the tax cuts as a philosophical point, and is similarly convinced that a repeat of this debate in 2012 -- when the economy is better and the deficit is worse -- will favor their side. So rightly or wrongly, they judged the two-year extension as much less of a loss than the Republicans judged it a win -- and that gave the Democrats leverage on the rest of the package.

    Meanwhile, the partisan electricity of the past year had obscured a simple fact: Much of what the Obama administration wanted was not that noxious to conservatives. They were tax cuts, many of them for businesses. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels had previously proposed both a payroll tax cut for 2011 and the tax breaks for business investment. Republicans have frequently said that they don't even oppose unemployment insurance.

    In all these cases, Republicans have argued that it's not the policies they oppose -- it's that Democrats aren't paying for them. But perhaps the most important enabler of the deal is that Republicans don't care about paying for them, either. The basic deal was that if the Obama White House would give the Republicans their unpaid-for tax cuts, Republicans would give the Obama White House their unpaid-for tax cuts.

    To put this in perspective, consider that last week, all Washington could talk about was the potential for a deal on deficit reduction. This week, it actually got a big deficit deal -- but it was a deficit-expansion deal. In the world that politicians claim they live in -- where the deficit is the overriding issue -- the deal couldn't have worked. But we don't live in that world. In this world, tax cuts, not deficits, are the Republicans' central concern, and stimulus, not deficits, obsesses the Democrats.

    Which brings us to the liberals. My conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours have convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal -- though liberals legitimately dislike the tax cuts for the rich, and rightly point out that Obama swore to let them expire -- than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the Democrats didn't fight for them. There were no veto threats or serious effort to take the case to the public.

    Instead, the White House disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. When the deal was cut, the president took an oblique shot at their preferences, saying "the American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories." And this came a mere week or two after the White House announced a federal pay freeze. The pattern, for progressives, seems clear: The White House uses them during elections, but doesn't listen to, or consult them, while governing. In fact, it insults them, and then tells them to quiet down, they got the best bargain possible, even if it wasn't the one they'd asked for, or been promised.

    If you're worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. "It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected." The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.

    That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it's true.
    Photo credit: J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press

Similar Threads

  1. Barrys Approval Rating all time low 41%
    By DEATH MATCH in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-21-2011, 12:04 AM
  2. President Barack Obama's First Ad of 2012
    By DEATH MATCH in forum Open Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04-06-2011, 04:11 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-03-2010, 02:32 AM
  4. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 12:49 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 01:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2001-2017 IronMag® Bodybuilding Forums