The American Spectator

Oldefarte| 12.31.09 @ 2:03PM

When his ratings slip down to 13% and never go lower, I guess that we all should know WHO that represents, right??????????????

Jeff Perren| 12.31.09 @ 2:30PM

I wish I could be more pleased. That more than 10% of the country is anything less than outraged and appalled doesn't speak well of the American public.

Bob| 12.31.09 @ 2:49PM

Then again, Reagan's approval rating dropped to 38% in 1983. In fact, from early ratings at about 60% in 1981, he had a steady drop until the low in 1983.

But then again, since most of you eschew education and knowledge, you wouldn't know things like that.....

I don't think Obama is doing a great job, but don't fool yourselves into believing that the extreme right (as most of you are) has any significant effect on overall approval ratings. Remember, AmSpec bloggers only represent about 18% of the electorate.

Right now, Obama is losing the support of independents and moderates. Reagan's ratings improved when the economy started improving in 1983. The same will happen with Obama -- so don't hold your breath...

JohnD| 12.31.09 @ 6:28PM

Bob, how is the economy going to improve? Small businesses are failing and those that aren't are afraid to hire because of the uncertainties of health care, cap and trade, etc. Our economy is 70% consumer driven and this President is at war with the American people, raising their taxes, raising the cost of their health care (while destroying the quality), destroying their savings by trashing the dollar with obscene spending and borrowing, etc. With 10% unemployed, and the rest seeing their purchasing power diminished, how will we recover?

Reagan put more money in people's pockets and that helped the economy recover. Obama is sucking money out of people's pockets to bail out out to millionaire bankers and Wall Street types, making an economic recovery impossible.

Bob| 1.1.10 @ 9:01AM

JohnD...

First of all, tax cuts are not stimulative on a macroeconomic basis. It may seem to you on a purely anecdotal basis that more money in your pocket would increase consumer spending, but it doesn't work that way in the aggregate. It is like looking out of your front window and assuming the earth is flat because that is your personal perspective. If you take a look at GDP adjusted for inflation, you will see no more growth during Reagan's tax cuts than at any other time.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.asp.....oup_Id=230

Furthermore, those Reagan tax cuts caused some of the largest increases in our national debt:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Unfortunately, we don't train our electorate in macroeconomics so they use simple minded anecdotes instead of data analysis. Some people point to growth during Reagan's time, but forget to adjust the numbers for inflation which is not real growth (and inflation was high during the beginning of his term).

There is an economic cycle that occurs that is relatively immune from government action. Simply put, we go back and forth from excesses (like bubbles) to low periods, and, for the most part, that cycle is self-correcting. Why? Because the economic cycle has more to do with private enterprise than individuals.

With such a large bubble produced in 2007-2008, it will take a longer time for the correction to take place. We are already seeing strength in business profits but job growth is lagging as it usually is. During the Reagan recession, it took about 16 months for job growth to return. In this case, it may take a few months longer, but it will happen. Why? Because growing businesses will eventually need to hire people. They will hold off as long as possible, but when inventories get too low, they will have to produce.

My major concern is the national debt and I have been concerned with that since Reagan. Obama is making the problem even worse. I don't think it is "conservative" to spend more than you take in and mortgaging our children's future is immoral.

serega| 5.4.10 @ 7:04AM

no blood rembo!