Obama Dropping in Polls

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

We went back to deficits because Bush spent like a drunken sailor. This country took in more than enough money it is Bush who spent to much.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW the budget was balanced due to three things:
a strong economy
an increase in tax revenue
controlling the increase in government spending.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/...et/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Look at the 90s on page 25 of the above document.

When Clinton took office in 1993 receipts were 17.6% of GDP and spending was 21.4%

When he left office in 2000 receipts were 20.9% of GDP and spending was 18.4% of GDP.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: quest55720
We went back to deficits because Bush spent like a drunken sailor. This country took in more than enough money it is Bush who spent to much.

Not completely true.

The early 2000 recession caused a HUGE drop in revenue to the Federal government and with that drop came a budget deficit.

Because of our progressive tax system recessions cause HUGE problems to our Federal and State governments who rely on the wealthy for so much of their revenue.

Look at 2000 and how the stock market rally caused a huge spike in government revenue. We took in over $2 trillion in 2000 (constant 2000 dollar), after the market crashed it would take 6 more years before we matched that amount again.

Of course it was over spending that caused the Bush deficits to continue long past the 2000 recession. But the initial deficits were caused by falling revenue as much as anything else.

 

[JSt0rm]

roundandroundandroundaround androundandroundaroundandroundandround aroundandroundandroundaround androundandroundaroundandround
androundaroundandroundandround.

Edit to Fix Formatting Problem

Fern
P&N Moderator

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
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.

The facts do not back up your claim.

When Clinton took office the Federal government was spending 21.4% of the GDP.

When he left office, and at the peak of his revenue, the Federal government was taking in 20.9% of the GDP.

If all Clinton had done was increase taxes and left spending alone we would have still been running a deficit.
It took the decrease in spending (in terms of GDP) in order to produce a balanced budget.

That decrease in spending did not materialize until AFTER the Republican took over congress.

 

[Drako]

-8% today.

I'm guessing -10% by the end of next week - the Gates thing and UHC are pissing more people off.

 

[Genx87]

First time he ventured into the sub 50 range and more people are disapproving of his performance.

 

[dali71]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Obama back up to 60%

Any chance we can update the OP?

Obama down to 54%

Agreed, an update is needed.

 

[Double Trouble]

People will continue to like Obama personally, but that doesn't mean they support his policies or his agenda. The country certainly doesn't approve of the extremist agenda of Pelosi and her ilk, as evidenced by her rating lower than Cheney, pretty much the standard bearer of unpopular politicians.

If Obama keeps pushing mandatory government healthcare for all, his numbers will keep dropping. The general public wants reform of the medical system, but the general public is not at all on board with mandatory giant government run health care.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Genx87
First time he ventured into the sub 50 range and more people are disapproving of his performance.

What did people expect from a junior senator who was a community organizer with no executive experience?

Oh wait, the average voter is too stupid and bought into HYPE, oops, I meant hope.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The facts do not back up your claim.

When Clinton took office the Federal government was spending 21.4% of the GDP.

When he left office, and at the peak of his revenue, the Federal government was taking in 20.9% of the GDP.

If all Clinton had done was increase taxes and left spending alone we would have still been running a deficit.
It took the decrease in spending (in terms of GDP) in order to produce a balanced budget.

That decrease in spending did not materialize until AFTER the Republican took over congress.

Clinton's 2nd term was during the dot.com boom. Everyone made money and paid a lot of capital gain/income tax, so nobody cared as long as they made money. I don't think the federal government spent less money per se, just that their revenues exploded.

 

[dali71]

Approval down to 53%, disapproval up to 39%

 

[moparacer]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: Craig234
Obama is paying the price for our nation having a high percentage of idiot citizens.

Indeed, and most of said idiots voted for him.

 

[OCGuy]

I didnt expect this type of beating, but I'm not complaining.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/113...bama-Job-Approval.aspx

 

[UberNeuman]

oh, look - at the six month mark, President Obama has a 63% approval rating...

\teabaggers, birthers and fundies, o' my!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
oh, look - at the six month mark, President Obama has a 63% approval rating...

\teabaggers, birthers and fundies, o' my!

He is 3 points above his all-time low.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/113...bama-Job-Approval.aspx

 

[First]

And this is pretty much as bad as it'll get unless there's a significant game changer over the next 4-6 weeks. Or the Dems drop the ball totally and completely, which wouldn't surprise me (or anyone), but which is "probably" not going to happen.

These threads are funny to bump though. Weekly entertainment. :laugh:

 

[jpeyton]

When this thread began over a month ago, Obama had a 58% approval rating.

Now it's 55%.

Since Gallup's sampling error is +/- 2%, that means Obama's approval rating has not changed in the sad month that OCguy has created and continually bumped this thread.

So much for him "dropping in polls".

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
When this thread began over a month ago, Obama had a 58% approval rating.

Now it's 55%.

Since Gallup's sampling error is +/- 2%, that means Obama's approval rating has not changed in the sad month that OCguy has created and continually bumped this thread.

So much for him "dropping in polls".

Or, another way to look at at it, it has changed 7%

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
When this thread began over a month ago, Obama had a 58% approval rating.

Now it's 55%.

Since Gallup's sampling error is +/- 2%, that means Obama's approval rating has not changed in the sad month that OCguy has created and continually bumped this thread.

So much for him "dropping in polls".

Way to spin it in your favor, I knew I could count on you for that.

 

[JSt0rm]

man you guys can spend time arguing about this crap? Sometimes it must be good to be a paper pusher.

 

[PokerGuy]

Just wait until people see their taxes go through the ceiling, or they see their energy bills go nuts because of cap & trade garbage. It will make Bush ratings look great by comparison.

 

[spidey07]

More people now disapprove of Obama than approve. The people are waking up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...idential_tracking_poll

 

[dali71]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
When this thread began over a month ago, Obama had a 58% approval rating.

Now it's 55%.

Since Gallup's sampling error is +/- 2%, that means Obama's approval rating has not changed in the sad month that OCguy has created and continually bumped this thread.

So much for him "dropping in polls".

Now he's down to 51%...

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dali71

Originally posted by: jpeyton
When this thread began over a month ago, Obama had a 58% approval rating.

Now it's 55%.

Since Gallup's sampling error is +/- 2%, that means Obama's approval rating has not changed in the sad month that OCguy has created and continually bumped this thread.

So much for him "dropping in polls".

Now he's down to 51%...

Ouch, all-time low.