Obama Dropping in Polls

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy
Trending worse than Carter?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...l-approval-tracker.htm


Edit: It is actually a pretty cool tool to compare polling.

From your link:

The six-month mark hasn't proved to be a particularly good indicator of how a president ultimately will fare.

Actually Carter was kicking ass at his 6 month mark... so most presidents 'trend worse than Carter' at this point. Clinton was doing terribly, look how that all turned out.

Clinton only turned out good because the Republicans took over congress and turned things around.

Reagan's approval on election 1982 was around 42%.
Clinton's approval on election day 1994 was around 40%.
Bush's approval on election day 2006 were similar.
In all three cases their party lost BIG in the mid term elections.

Obama is well above that point now, but if the trend continues it could be very bad for Democrats in 2010.

 

[theeedude]

Clinton only turned out good because the Democrat congress got deficit reduction passed before Republicans took over.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Clinton only turned out good because the Democrat congress got deficit reduction passed before Republicans took over.

Yea right... look at Clinton's own budget and you will see that he had no plans to reduce the deficit until AFTER the Republicans took over.

I have covered this on many many threads and can provide links to back this up.

1996 budget, written mostly before the Republican take over of congress.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96h.pdf

Page 18 he estimates deficits of 192b, 196b, 213b, 196b, 197b and 194b.

1997 budget, written after the Republican take over.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 20 estimated deficits 145b, 140b, 97b, 64b, 27b and a surplus.

The only thing that changed between those two deficits was the control of congress.

If you want more proof try finding any speech by Clinton where he talks about a balanced budget prior to the Republican take over. I tried and couldn't find one.

During his first two state of the union addresses he does not even mention a balanced budget. It isn't until his 3rd in 1995 that he even uses the term 'balanced'
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/index.htm <--state of the union addresses, look at them for yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: OCguy
Trending worse than Carter?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...l-approval-tracker.htm


Edit: It is actually a pretty cool tool to compare polling.

From your link:

The six-month mark hasn't proved to be a particularly good indicator of how a president ultimately will fare.

Actually Carter was kicking ass at his 6 month mark... so most presidents 'trend worse than Carter' at this point. Clinton was doing terribly, look how that all turned out.

Clinton only turned out good because the Republicans took over congress and turned things around.

Reagan's approval on election 1982 was around 42%.
Clinton's approval on election day 1994 was around 40%.
Bush's approval on election day 2006 were similar.
In all three cases their party lost BIG in the mid term elections.

Obama is well above that point now, but if the trend continues it could be very bad for Democrats in 2010.

Why are you using comparisons with presidents that were between 10 and 20 points lower than Obama as some sort of comparison? Silliness.

As for your credit to the Republicans for 'turning things around', color me shocked.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for your credit to the Republicans for 'turning things around', color me shocked.

Are you suggesting that it was not the Republican take over that turned things around for Clinton??

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for your credit to the Republicans for 'turning things around', color me shocked.

Are you suggesting that it was not the Republican take over that turned things around for Clinton??

I thought newt and Clinton made a good team. Both of them fiscal conservatives and both being at the opposite ends of the social spectrum caused gridlock in that area. It was a great 6 years of fiscal conservatives in charge. It is to bad that Obama does not understand economics as well as Clinton.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for your credit to the Republicans for 'turning things around', color me shocked.

Are you suggesting that it was not the Republican take over that turned things around for Clinton??

Yeap.

It would take some serious revisionist history to somehow credit the Republicans for 'turning things around' post 1994. Considering the revisionist history surrounding Reagan if you are attempting to do this it wouldn't exactly be a surprise.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think it was Dick Morris who summed up the Clinton years the best.

Clinton was a centrist Democrat who had a very liberal congress that pulled him to the left for his first two years.

Once the Republicans took over Clinton was able to position himself down the middle and run the country as a centrist and the results were mostly good.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Clinton only turned out good because the Democrat congress got deficit reduction passed before Republicans took over.

Yea right... look at Clinton's own budget and you will see that he had no plans to reduce the deficit until AFTER the Republicans took over.

I have covered this on many many threads and can provide links to back this up.

1996 budget, written mostly before the Republican take over of congress.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96h.pdf

Page 18 he estimates deficits of 192b, 196b, 213b, 196b, 197b and 194b.

1997 budget, written after the Republican take over.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 20 estimated deficits 145b, 140b, 97b, 64b, 27b and a surplus.

The only thing that changed between those two deficits was the control of congress.

If you want more proof try finding any speech by Clinton where he talks about a balanced budget prior to the Republican take over. I tried and couldn't find one.

During his first two state of the union addresses he does not even mention a balanced budget. It isn't until his 3rd in 1995 that he even uses the term 'balanced'
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/index.htm <--state of the union addresses, look at them for yourself.

History lesson, Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think it was Dick Morris who summed up the Clinton years the best.

Clinton was a centrist Democrat who had a very liberal congress that pulled him to the left for his first two years.

Once the Republicans took over Clinton was able to position himself down the middle and run the country as a centrist and the results were mostly good.

Dick Morris is a hilariously bad source for information about the Clintons, he clearly has an axe to grind and is an endless self-promoter.

The initiatives that Clinton pushed in his first two years were not pressed upon him by Congress, they were his own. Clinton was a liberal who adapted to political reality in order to secure his own personal electoral advantage.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for your credit to the Republicans for 'turning things around', color me shocked.

Are you suggesting that it was not the Republican take over that turned things around for Clinton??

Yeap.

It would take some serious revisionist history to somehow credit the Republicans for 'turning things around' post 1994. Considering the revisionist history surrounding Reagan if you are attempting to do this it wouldn't exactly be a surprise.

Are you out of your mind???

The Democrats pre-1994 were doing such a good job that they lost 54 seats in the 1994 election. Not ONE Republican lost re-election while 34 Democrats lost re-election including the Speaker of the House who is the ONLY speaker to lose re-election since the Civil War.

And yet the Republicans deserve no credit for what happened in the years following this election?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for your credit to the Republicans for 'turning things around', color me shocked.

Are you suggesting that it was not the Republican take over that turned things around for Clinton??

Yeap.

It would take some serious revisionist history to somehow credit the Republicans for 'turning things around' post 1994. Considering the revisionist history surrounding Reagan if you are attempting to do this it wouldn't exactly be a surprise.

Are you out of your mind???

The Democrats pre-1994 were doing such a good job that they lost 54 seats in the 1994 election. Not ONE Republican lost re-election while 34 Democrats lost re-election including the Speaker of the House who is the ONLY speaker to lose re-election since the Civil War.

And yet the Republicans deserve no credit for what happened in the years following this election?

I didn't say that the Republicans deserved no credit, but your post clearly gave them all the credit. The budget was not balanced through some sort of legislation passed by the Republicans, it was balanced by large economic growth in an era of partisan legislative deadlock. Anyone arguing otherwise is engaging in revisionist history.

 

[theeedude]

Sometimes doing right things is unpopular.

 

[theeedude]

Deficit was reduced by

wait for it...

GASP...

Deficit Reduction Act of 1993.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sometimes doing right things is unpopular.

Damn, Bush was a saint!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: senseamp
Sometimes doing right things is unpopular.

Damn, Bush was a saint!

This does not mean doing wrong things is always popular.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Clinton only turned out good because the Democrat congress got deficit reduction passed before Republicans took over.

Yea right... look at Clinton's own budget and you will see that he had no plans to reduce the deficit until AFTER the Republicans took over.

I have covered this on many many threads and can provide links to back this up.

1996 budget, written mostly before the Republican take over of congress.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96h.pdf

Page 18 he estimates deficits of 192b, 196b, 213b, 196b, 197b and 194b.

1997 budget, written after the Republican take over.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 20 estimated deficits 145b, 140b, 97b, 64b, 27b and a surplus.

The only thing that changed between those two deficits was the control of congress.

If you want more proof try finding any speech by Clinton where he talks about a balanced budget prior to the Republican take over. I tried and couldn't find one.

During his first two state of the union addresses he does not even mention a balanced budget. It isn't until his 3rd in 1995 that he even uses the term 'balanced'
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/index.htm <--state of the union addresses, look at them for yourself.

History lesson, Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

Actually they took over in January 1995.

Perhaps you need a lesson on how budgets work.

Republican win election in 1994 and take office in 1995.

Around February 1995 that year Bill Clinton hands them the 1996 budget(first link) for the fiscal year that begins October 1 1995.

Republicans and Clinton fighter over the budget for the year and then hammer out a budget agreement.

The following February Clinton hands congress the 1997 budget (second link) which includes the details worked out by him and the Republican congress the previous year.

Get it?

The budget written prior to the Republican take over includes $1 trillion in projected deficits and NO balanced budget or even large deficit reduction. The budget written POST Republican take over projects a balanced budget within 6 years.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, of course it's Republicans and not Clinton responsible for the surpluses, which is why surpluses vanished as soon as Clinton left.
Yeah, stick to your revisionist history, without it, all you got are some failed policies. We saw what happens when Republicans get their way.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Clinton only turned out good because the Democrat congress got deficit reduction passed before Republicans took over.

Yea right... look at Clinton's own budget and you will see that he had no plans to reduce the deficit until AFTER the Republicans took over.

I have covered this on many many threads and can provide links to back this up.

1996 budget, written mostly before the Republican take over of congress.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy96/pdf/bud96h.pdf

Page 18 he estimates deficits of 192b, 196b, 213b, 196b, 197b and 194b.

1997 budget, written after the Republican take over.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 20 estimated deficits 145b, 140b, 97b, 64b, 27b and a surplus.

The only thing that changed between those two deficits was the control of congress.

If you want more proof try finding any speech by Clinton where he talks about a balanced budget prior to the Republican take over. I tried and couldn't find one.

During his first two state of the union addresses he does not even mention a balanced budget. It isn't until his 3rd in 1995 that he even uses the term 'balanced'
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/index.htm <--state of the union addresses, look at them for yourself.

History lesson, Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

Actually they took over in January 1995.

Perhaps you need a lesson on how budgets work.

Republican win election in 1994 and take office in 1995.

Around February 1995 that year Bill Clinton hands them the 1996 budget(first link) for the fiscal year that begins October 1 1995.

Republicans and Clinton fighter over the budget for the year and then hammer out a budget agreement.

The following February Clinton hands congress the 1997 budget (second link) which includes the details worked out by him and the Republican congress the previous year.

Get it?

The budget written prior to the Republican take over includes $1 trillion in projected deficits and NO balanced budget or even large deficit reduction. The budget written POST Republican take over projects a balanced budget within 6 years.

Because deficit reduction was written into other legislation as already mentioned in this thread. Reductions that every single Republican voted against. Every last one.

 

[theeedude]

That is true, every single Republican voted against deficit reduction, just like every one of them will probably vote against healthcare reform.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Deficit was reduced by

wait for it...

GASP...

Deficit Reduction Act of 1993.

If that was true then how come Clinton's 1995 budget did not included a projected balanced budget?

The 1993 bill dealt with the Fiscal year 1994 and was passed in August 1993.

The 1995 budget was presented to congress in Feb 1995 and did NOT project a balanced budget or even a decrease in projected deficits.
1995 budget projections look at the bottom left.

Also, read the budget message from Clinton's 1995 budget
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/aca...udget-1995/message.txt

It keeps deficits on a downward path;

Downward path is a far cry from a balanced budget.

Now read the budget message from the 1997 budget presented Feb 5, 1996 AFTER the Republican take over of congress.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/feb_bud.pdf

It reaches balance in seven years

From a downward path to balanced and the only thing to change was the control of congress.

For the record here is the 1996 budget message presented shortly after Republicans took over congress. Read through it and look for the term 'balanced budget.' You won't find it.

 

[quest55720]

If any of the crappy current health care bills come up for vote I hope every single republican and the blue dogs vote no. This is Obama being a coward and not wanting to stand up to Pelosi. Obama should send congress a bill that does what he campaigned on. If he does that it will pass and ever one will be happy. Instead he lets the far far left wing lead by Pelosi write these bills.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is true, every single Republican voted against deficit reduction, just like every one of them will probably vote against healthcare reform.

And this matters how? It's not like their vote is desperately needed to pass the UHC bill.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
That is true, every single Republican voted against tax increases, just like every one of them will probably vote against healthcare reform.

Fixed.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Deficit was reduced by

wait for it...

GASP...

Deficit Reduction Act of 1993.

If that was true then how come Clinton's 1995 budget did not included a projected balanced budget?

The 1993 bill dealt with the Fiscal year 1994 and was passed in August 1993.

The 1995 budget was presented to congress in Feb 1995 and did NOT project a balanced budget or even a decrease in projected deficits.
1995 budget projections look at the bottom left.

Also, read the budget message from Clinton's 1995 budget
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/aca...udget-1995/message.txt

It keeps deficits on a downward path;

Downward path is a far cry from a balanced budget.

Now read the budget message from the 1997 budget presented Feb 5, 1996 AFTER the Republican take over of congress.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy97/pdf/feb_bud.pdf

It reaches balance in seven years

From a downward path to balanced and the only thing to change was the control of congress.

For the record here is the 1996 budget message presented shortly after Republicans took over congress. Read through it and look for the term 'balanced budget.' You won't find it.

Without 1993 Act's marginal tax rate changes, which ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST, we would not have a balanced budget in the 90s. As soon as Bush did away with those in 2001, we went back to running deficits. Of course you think it's a coincidence, or you are simply in denial, either way, I will leave you to your mental contortionism.