Polling on 'porkulus': It's no change, and Americans aren't believing in it.

Cancel10

Independent Thinker
posted by Donny Ferguson on Feb 16, 2009

As more polling numbers roll in, it's not looking any better for the Obama administration.

Despite Friday's passage of the president's package of wealth transfers and expanded spending, Rasmussen reports today only 38 percent of voters think it will help the economy. That means faith in the $1.1 trillion Obama spending bill measures at the roughly same percentage as that of Americans who believe in ghosts and astrology.

Just 27 percent of independent voters, the folks who actually decide elections, say it helps. Thirty-four percent think Obama's spending explosion will end up hurting the economy.

The package, which Obama claimed must be passed so quickly no one should be allowed even read it because "we don't have a moment to spare," will not be signed until Tuesday so the president can take advantage of better non-holiday weekend media coverage.

Rasmussen's polling finds middle-class voters, those most likely to be "swing" voters, are the most skeptical of the spending bill. Only 31 percent think the bill is a mix of new spending and tax cuts, while 50 percent recognize the bill is mostly new spending. Only eight percent of voters think the bill is primarily tax cuts. Many of the tax "cuts" in the bill are nothing more than checks written out to people with no income tax liability.

Despite a fevered sell by Obama, including a prime-time press conference that drew fewer viewers than Clinton's debut presidential press conference, only thirty-two percent of voters are more likely to vote for a candidate that supported the spending bill. Thirty-five percent are more likely to vote against such a candidate.

Pennsylvania senator and spending bill supporter Arlen Specter has already seen his re-election prospects damaged by his vote. Rasmussen finds just 31 percent of Pennsylvania voters are more likely to vote for Specter because of his support for the bills, while 40 percent are now more likely to vote against him.

Link
 
The part that believes in astrology is the 40% on the other end of the spectrum, and they're the ones who think stimulus hurts the economy.
 
Do polls like this really matter?

This is about results. If the economy is back on it's feet in the next year, that's what will register.

I'm pretty stoked right now. It's like we have a real President again. I think the stimulus was exactly what we needed, and it's great to hear him talk about halving the deficit in 4 years, instead of asserting that "deficit spending doesn't matter."

Change, indeed.
 
Do polls like this really matter?

This is about results. If the economy is back on it's feet in the next year, that's what will register.

I'm pretty stoked right now. It's like we have a real President again. I think the stimulus was exactly what we needed, and it's great to hear him talk about halving the deficit in 4 years, instead of asserting that "deficit spending doesn't matter."

Change, indeed.

Bush spoke about halfing the deficit as well while he went right along spending. How is that any change?
 
That's also roughly the same number that believe in evolution, http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUKN2922875820071129?sp=true

... which doesn't say anything about the strength of the theory/stimulus as much as it says about how fucking stupid Americans are.

Agreed. It's just like to polls on Bush being so unpopular. What the hell does that mean? The next most unpopular president, according to the polls, was Harry Truman who most legitimate professional historians consider a near great (top 10) President.

Don't get me wrong, I still consider W a failed President but the point on polls is still valid.
 
Do polls like this really matter?

This is about results. If the economy is back on it's feet in the next year, that's what will register.

I'm pretty stoked right now. It's like we have a real President again. I think the stimulus was exactly what we needed, and it's great to hear him talk about halving the deficit in 4 years, instead of asserting that "deficit spending doesn't matter."

Change, indeed.

The only problems is how realistic is that? He's just spent a trillion dollars in spending and he's still has Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for. How will he accomplish this with out a tremendous raise in taxes? It would take more than just allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. To cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2012, which I do support, he would have to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan, allow the bush tax cuts to expire, have congress reinstitute paygo and implement a top end progressive tax hike. He might do away with the later if he can do all of the former....but good luck with that as it will be hard to do in 4 years.

Having said that, if Obama can withdraw us from Iraq and Afghanistan with out creating chaos or power vacuums in the region and have congress reinstitute paygo and show tangible benefits to the present spending program, I'll vote for him in 2012. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is a no brainer politically. It would be a harder sell for him to have them extended. Though I would compromise. I would agree to extending the Bush tax cuts if congress will implement paygo again.
 
Agreed. It's just like to polls on Bush being so unpopular. What the hell does that mean? The next most unpopular president, according to the polls, was Harry Truman who most legitimate professional historians consider a near great (top 10) President.

Don't get me wrong, I still consider W a failed President but the point on polls is still valid.

No, the polling was correct - Truman did suck.
 
No, the polling was correct - Truman did suck.

Gee another amateur historian giving us his opinion on a great man. Oh Why oh wise man did Truman suck?

Personally, next to FDR, he and TR were the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century. Now you're probably going to tell me that TR and FDR sucked too and are going to have some sophomoric reason why.
 
Support rises for stimulus, though doubts on impact

Now that the $787 billion stimulus bill is law, support for it has grown, a new poll suggests.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this afternoon shows that 60 percent favor the package and 39 percent oppose it, compared to earlier polls that found Americans evenly divided.

Fewer respondents, 53 percent, said they believed the stimulus would lead to a "significant improvement" in the economy, and only 31 percent said it would mean a significant improvement in their own financial situation.

Americans continue to be very high on President Obama, who hits the one-month mark in office today: 49 percent called the stimulus bill's passage a major victory for him, 74 percent say he has met or exceeded expectations, and 67 percent strongly or moderately approve of how he is handling his job, though that latter number is down from 76 percent earlier this month.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/02/support_rises_f.html

Anyone want to take a guess on how popular republicans aren't and their handling of the stimulus plan?
 
Gee another amateur historian giving us his opinion on a great man. Oh Why oh wise man did Truman suck?

Personally, next to FDR, he and TR were the greatest Presidents of the 20th Century. Now you're probably going to tell me that TR and FDR sucked too and are going to have some sophomoric reason why.

If you consider arresting and imprisoning an entire group of people based on their ancestry a great action, I feel terribly bad for you.
 
If you consider arresting and imprisoning an entire group of people based on their ancestry a great action, I feel terribly bad for you.

Well let me guess, you probably think Washington and Lincoln were just horrible people too. Washington permitted the enslavement of an entire race of people and even owned slaves and we all know Lincoln suspended habeous corpus. Oh those horrible horrible villians.


What dribble dude. FDR was one of the three truely great Presidents this nation has ever had.
 
Well let me guess, you probably think Washington and Lincoln were just horrible people too. Washington permitted the enslavement of an entire race of people and even owned slaves and we all know Lincoln suspended habeous corpus. Oh those horrible horrible villians.


What dribble dude. FDR was one of the three truely great Presidents this nation has ever had.

i see you're as fucked in the liberal head as ib1stupidasshead and obviously have zero clue as to early american history.

Washington didn't 'permit' the enslavement of an entire race, it had been going on longer than before washington had even been born. so you fail already.

All you've proven is that the socialist mindset, that's you, really doesn't care about freedom and has no problem imprisoning whoever and whatever group they need to in order to enforce their will.
 
i see you're as fucked in the liberal head as ib1stupidasshead and obviously have zero clue as to early american history.

Washington didn't 'permit' the enslavement of an entire race, it had been going on longer than before washington had even been born. so you fail already.

All you've proven is that the socialist mindset, that's you, really doesn't care about freedom and has no problem imprisoning whoever and whatever group they need to in order to enforce their will.

You're wacked dude. Where do you learn your non-sense at?

FDR was unquestionably one of the greatest political leaders in our history. Was the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII a shamefull part of his legacy? Of course it was but it does not negate that he lead this nation through two of the worst crises this nation has ever seen.

Only a person stupendously ignorant of American History, or an extremist partisan hack would argue other wise.
 
here's a note for ya, republicans hated clintons plan, what did it get them.
4 more years of Clinton
Obama 2012
 
here's a note for ya, republicans hated clintons plan, what did it get them.
4 more years of Clinton
Obama 2012

Republicans lost twice to Clinton because they were so stupid, deciding between Bush/Dole and Clinton was a difficult enough of a decision that candidates such as Perot and Buchanan were able to ride in on white horses and gallop away with many of their protest votes. And of course, many more simply stayed home believing that there was "no difference" between the contenders.
 
You're wacked dude. Where do you learn your non-sense at?

FDR was unquestionably one of the greatest political leaders in our history. Was the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII a shamefull part of his legacy? Of course it was but it does not negate that he lead this nation through two of the worst crises this nation has ever seen.

Only a person stupendously ignorant of American History, or an extremist partisan hack would argue other wise.

I hearken back to my USMC days. You can have 1,000 atta boys and fuck it all up with one 'aw, shit' moment. Thats what FDR did.
 
Back
Top