Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/25/us/politics/approval-of-congress-drops-to-single-digits.html?ref=politics

[Source: Based on nationwide telephone interviews conducted October 19-24 with 1,650 adults.]

Questions (as they aren't on the graph):

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right?

Do you think President Obama does or does not have a clear plan for creating jobs?
Does: 38%
Does not: 56%
No opinion: 6%

Do you think the Republicans in Congress do or do not have a clear plan for creating jobs?
Do: 20%
Do not: 71%
No opinion: 9%

Do you think the views of people involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement generally reflect the views of most Americans?
Yes: 46%
No: 34%
Some do: 2%
No opinion: 18%

Aweseme, let the churn continue!

I'm also kinda surprised that so few people think the repugs have no plan for jobs. I mean, it's true, they really don't, but I would have expected at least the repug party members to think that they have one.

Frazzled wrote:Aweseme, let the churn continue!

Except people hate everyone elses congressional representative. Not their own.

Even so this kind of low is rather rare.

True dat. On the positive Congress has churned heavily in every election since 2006. Me likey. Maybe we'll a Demo House, Republican Senate, and Republican President. It'll be so 1981 I may have to rent Red Dawn and wander the earth muttering "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall."

Republicans were not sent there to create jobs.

It was clear when I saw where there war chest was coming from. They were basically Kamikaze pilots, already the first term republicans are complaining about such low funding for campaigning.

Serve big business
Make Obama a 1 term president

That was there only priority. It is a shame too, the people voted them yet they ignore and laugh at them.


Democrats are trying to capitalize on the OWS movement. If they are successful, I hope we do not get another screw job tidal wave.

As for Obama, it is going to be hard to consider vdoting for him at this point. I guess I have to wait and see.


I will probably end up voting for Ron Paul and waste my vote. Then again, living in NY, voting for anyone but democrat is basically a waste.

Piston Honda wrote:Republicans were not sent there to create jobs.

It was clear when I saw where there war chest was coming from. They were basically Kamikaze pilots, already the first term republicans are complaining about such low funding for campaigning.

Serve big business
Make Obama a 1 term president

That was there only priority. It is a shame too, the people voted them yet they ignore and laugh at them.


Democrats are trying to capitalize on the OWS movement. If they are successful, I hope we do not get another screw job tidal wave.

As for Obama, it is going to be hard to consider vdoting for him at this point. I guess I have to wait and see.


I will probably end up voting for Ron Paul and waste my vote. Then again, living in NY, voting for anyone but democrat is basically a waste.

Do you agree with Ron Paul that 9/11 was an inside job? Think about who you actuall vote for, before you vote.

I'll probably vote Obama myself, simply because I'm more worried about jobs than the national debt. Worrying about the national debt has basically given government the excuse of ignoring job creation plans...

Set into play mid and long term plans to ease the debt, and in the short term create jobs so we'll have more tax revenue to pay off the debt in the first place.

Dunno, makes sense to me.

Frazzled wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:Republicans were not sent there to create jobs.

It was clear when I saw where there war chest was coming from. They were basically Kamikaze pilots, already the first term republicans are complaining about such low funding for campaigning.

Serve big business
Make Obama a 1 term president

That was there only priority. It is a shame too, the people voted them yet they ignore and laugh at them.


Democrats are trying to capitalize on the OWS movement. If they are successful, I hope we do not get another screw job tidal wave.

As for Obama, it is going to be hard to consider vdoting for him at this point. I guess I have to wait and see.


I will probably end up voting for Ron Paul and waste my vote. Then again, living in NY, voting for anyone but democrat is basically a waste.

Do you agree with Ron Paul that 9/11 was an inside job? Think about who you actuall vote for, before you vote.

Can you link to where Ron Paul claims he is a "truther"?

It seems to me many people like to twist Ron Pauls words or make him guilty by associations.

Many truthers love Ron Paul, he can not help that. There are many non-truther who like him as well.

Ron Paul went on to the Alex Jones show which he brought up 9/11 was inside job. Ron Paul never said he believed it, but did agree with him that government is/can be dangerous.

Days following on the John Gibson radio show, John asked Ron Paul if he believed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ron did not believe in them.

When asked if he would call for a further investigation into 9/11 he said he would. But not on the grounds that it was an inside job. The investigation would be to find where are the faults and later said it is natural for a government to try to hide its ineptness.

I will probably end up voting for Ron Paul and waste my vote.

You mean the gold standard, flat tax, isolationist that wants to abolish the department of education and the IRS and shut down every military base not on american soil isn't a shoe in for victory?

Melissia wrote:I'll probably vote Obama myself, simply because I'm more worried about jobs than the national debt. Worrying about the national debt has basically given government the excuse of ignoring job creation plans...

Set into play mid and long term plans to ease the debt, and in the short term create jobs so we'll have more tax revenue to pay off the debt in the first place.

Dunno, makes sense to me.

I would only vote in 1 of these cases

Perry is Running (not likely)
Bachman running (not likely)
Herman Cane (Can it be?)
Some how some way Palin is a VP candidate.


Against Mitt I don't know at this point. He has to start fighting again for what I thought he was going to do and show that he has a back bone.

ObamaCare + Republican mandate, though has some beneficial laws in it, it continues to give more power to insurance companies and I am tired of being insurance poor. Going without insurance in not an option for me.

Republicans have given me no faith that they can fix health care, there plan is grab a pickle jar and stand out side a gas station.

Then again, when you have people who believe there are no problems with our access to health care/insurance costs kind of hard to expect them to do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I will probably end up voting for Ron Paul and waste my vote.

You mean the gold standard, flat tax, isolationist that wants to abolish the department of education and the IRS and shut down every military base not on american soil isn't a shoe in for victory?

Going off the gold standard was a terrible idea. Thanks nixon.

I am for a flat tax.

I am a isolationist to an extent, we can no longer afford to be the world police.

We need to withdraw our military from across the globe. I can see having a few stationed in Europe and Australia as they do frequently train together.

Closing down public education won't happen. There are a lot of issues with it, but closing down public education will hinder economic advancement completely. I am however in favor of parents allowing them to take the taxes they that go into public schools and have them go to a private school or charter school that their kids attend to offset costs.

After reading some more on Herman Cain's plan I am beginning to accept him slowly again. I don't mind areas that need help being taxed less so long as it starts more business( areas like inner city Detroit would have a 3-3-3 instead of 9-9-9).

Rick Perry is a joke in my opinion and I'm glad he's crashing and burning, Bachman makes me wonder why she's even running, but Cain and Romney are both possibles for me. Romney less than Cain for reasons I have stated before, he has never been in government office which means he hasn't been influenced by lobbyists yet.

halonachos wrote:(areas like inner city Detroit would have a 3-3-3 instead of 9-9-9)

He told Detroit it would be 9-0-9 for them.

Manchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:(areas like inner city Detroit would have a 3-3-3 instead of 9-9-9)

He told Detroit it would be 9-0-9 for them.

That's what he told Detroit? Thanks for the clarification. I still don't mind because he's going by the area in question and hopefully a lower the cost of operating a business, also here is a small explanation for an area like Detroit:

9% on business investments, 0% on income, and 9% on spending(federal sales tax I believe). Analysts are looking at it and saying that the poor in the area probably don't have business investments so they wouldn't be paying the 9% business investment tax so in reality they would only pay the 9% on sale items. Still don't mind because its something they're putting into the system. Even illegals will be paying federal tax now along with other people like drug dealers and people with illegal sources of income.

Going off the gold standard was a terrible idea. Thanks nixon.

Having our currency pegged to a volatile international commodity was never a good idea. In the last five years our currency would of deflated 500% for instance. That would of forced us off the standard during a global recession or it would just made a third of our population starve. Gold standard advocates never understand the actual concept of currency pegging in my experience.

Piston Honda wrote:I am for a flat tax.

Thing is, flat taxes are almost always a bad idea because they basically tax the poor more than they do the rich while giving the illusion of being fair to everyone therefor hard to change.

Why is it the president's job to create more jobs?

:(

It's always a good sign for a democracy when its democratic institutions are held in such low regard by the public.

:(

Technically it's capitalism's job, but capitalism is incompetent and corrupt so someone else has to get it done.

Horst wrote:Why is it the president's job to create more jobs?

:(

President's like all the cool perks of being President?

Frazzled wrote:

Horst wrote:Why is it the president's job to create more jobs?

:(

President's like all the cool perks of being President?

Marilyn Monroe being the perkiest of perks...

kronk wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Horst wrote:Why is it the president's job to create more jobs?

:(

President's like all the cool perks of being President?

Marilyn Monroe being the perkiest of perks...

ShumaGorath wrote:

Going off the gold standard was a terrible idea. Thanks nixon.

Having our currency pegged to a volatile international commodity was never a good idea. In the last five years our currency would of deflated 500% for instance. That would of forced us off the standard during a global recession or it would just made a third of our population starve. Gold standard advocates never understand the actual concept of currency pegging in my experience.

No

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/406954.page

Frazzled wrote:True dat. On the positive Congress has churned heavily in every election since 2006. Me likey. Maybe we'll a Demo House, Republican Senate, and Republican President. It'll be so 1981 I may have to rent Red Dawn and wander the earth muttering "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall."

My highly unscientific prediction for this election cycle:

Senate: 51/49, Democrat majority.

House: 221/214, Republican majority.

President: Democrat.

No prediction for Governorships yet.

Well, it is simply not the governments job to create jobs. When governments create jobs, they are public sector jobs paid for by private sector tax payers.

The job of the government is to provide an atmosphere for companies and individuals to compete for success.

This implies some certainty or what the tax code will be tomorrow and onward, and what the regulations will be tomorrow and onward.

For the past several years, there has been some lending shenanigans, with the government forcing money onto banks, and adding about 4000 pages more of banking regulations. A lot of debate about what will be done or not done in regard to taxes, mandatory health care, etc.

Not to mention a huge amount of national debt added on top of it all.

This has all created uncertainty, and a continuiing downward spiral on the overal economy, and therefore jobs, incomes, and then tax revenue.

In turn, many people, and lots of them in positions of power, beleive that more debt, and spending, and creating of jobs through government, more services, and more benefits for people will solve the problem, but it just continues the downward spiral.

There is always a need for some public sector jobs and services, and welfare, but the balance is way out of whack, and nearing a 50/50 split of those who pay in and those who collect in some manner. This is unsustainable.

Meanwhile, those in public sector jobs have unions that constantly demand higher pay, higher benefits, and regularly scheduled cost of living increases. Sure there are some towns where this is not the case, but as a whole it is.

The House is now controlled by one party, but can not always agree on a plan of action, and then the Senate is controlled by another party, who can also not always agree, but certainly does not agree with what the House does.

This makes it so not much gets done, a lot gets talked about, but not much done in either direction on most issues, especially those involving finance.

For instance, there has been no budget in what 2 years now? Which is illegal under the constitution.

Why would anyone have a high opinion on the Congress or the President right now?

As far as the Occupy crowd goes. They accomplish nothing, except the longer they stay out there, the more they lose any sympathy they may have had to begin with.

If they reallly wanted revolution, they would all Occupy Washington DC, not Wall Street, and every other random town and city. Take a lesson from the other countries who have done it recently, do they protest in their small town? No. They flooded the capitals.

Things in this country must not be that bad, or the masses would be willing to risk being shot.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
As far as the Occupy crowd goes. They accomplish nothing, except the longer they stay out there, the more they lose any sympathy they may have had to begin with.

That doesn't make any sense, unless you're implying that the OWS crowd is not deserving of sympathy on its face.

Which is certainly a legitimate position.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
If they reallly wanted revolution, they would all Occupy Washington DC, not Wall Street, and every other random town and city. Take a lesson from the other countries who have done it recently, do they protest in their small town? No. They flooded the capitals.

Things in this country must not be that bad, or the masses would be willing to risk being shot.

Yeah, I'm not sure that you can say OWS hasn't protested in major locales. New York is quite big.

Additionally, protesting in a democracy isn't the same as overthrowing an authoritarian state.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:As far as the Occupy crowd goes. They accomplish nothing, except the longer they stay out there, the more they lose any sympathy they may have had to begin with.

I think that the Occupy crowd is not lacking in sympathy lately, the cops are seeing to that.



Sending cops in riot gear after hippies in tents and lobbing flashbangs at people who are trying to save the life of an OIF vet with a fractured skull courtesy of the same police force usually gives you at least some sympathy points.

I suppose its the people that took out 70k in student loans to attend Harvard, and are complaining they haven't got the means to pay it back yet, or the people like the retired public employee, whos pension is only a bit over $7000 a month who are out there.

Or maybe it is the "kitchen staff" at Wall Street who no longer wants to feed the random homeless people who are not protesting, while at the same time claiming to be "fighting for the little guy" with the protest.

How about the infighting over the control of a half million dollars to fund the protest, which is most likely being held in a major bank.

There is infighting in Portland Oregon over the 20,000 USD the occupy crowd has, one portion of the group has control over it, the rest want to control it.

This is what I mean by losing sympathy. I say let the occupy crowd stay in their camps as long as they like. The more they talk, the more absurd it all seems.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Well, it is simply not the governments job to create jobs. When governments create jobs, they are public sector jobs paid for by private sector tax payers.

No, government can dramatically influence the creating of jobs in the private sector.

I'd suggest you talk to this guy John Maynard Keynes about this, but it was a long time ago so he's probably dead by now.