If there’s any Obama advisors out there, here’s your wakeup call! Push job creation to the exclusion of all else, and you will reap a whirlwind of electoral success. Plus, America will be better off. It’s time for a CCC for a new millennium.

How reassuring to know that 18% of us are empathy-free.

Yeah, and 80% of Americans wanted a public option. Expect to be ignored by the current administration.

Obama’s not interested in “electoral success”. He’s on a four-year looting mission to steal/achieve certain things for his masters, and employment for working-class people is not one of them.

See, when you side with the 18% against the 80%, your own poll numbers suffer. Is that so fucking difficult to figure out? For President Blue Cross and his Merry Band of Republican-Ass-Kissers, apparently so…

I read that the House is expected to have more than 20 seats change hands again this year for the third time in as many election seasons.

It is beginning to look to me like people are voting for the Not Incumbent in the hopes that SOMEHOW Washington will get the message, but since we seem to be restricted to choosing between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, we aren’t having much effect.

One problem with polls is that the respondents can frequently have opposite opinions at the same time. If you ask should the gov’t should incur multi-trillion dollar debts to China, I suspect the answer would be in reverse.

Another problem is that the question is too simplistic. What makes America grow is productive jobs, mostly in the private sector. We have seen a huge pile of money spent and the has been little growth in private businesses. Gov’t jobs need to be paid for, not from sales or growth of production facilities, but from taxes and borrowing. A lot of the citizens do not see that as a way out of the hole.

I do agree with runfastabdwin, however, that the President and his team need to push those things that will cause private business to hire more people.

Not a big surprise. The elites never want what the people want. That’s why liberal democracy is naturally oligarchic. “Democracy”, as framed by the Founding Fathers, meant democracy for the rich, and poverty for the serfs (the rest of us).

Newsflash: people don’t like being unemployed.

If and when the WH ever manages to grasp this concept, they can then move on to the really complicated ideas…like…the sky is blue, for example.

I’m starting to feel that big business wants the Republicans back in control, or at the very least move the country further to the right. Companies are sitting on mountains of cash, yet they aren’t expanding, banks aren’t lending despite a near free rate of interest from the fed. There are a lot of reasons for this to be sure, a lack of demand, so no need to increase supply, but clearly neo-liberal policies have just created excess, not jobs.

It’s a great shock doctrine time for these guys, and the only way to stimulate the economy at this point is to have government spending to the states, to unemployment, and of course infrastructure improvements. The failure to produce another, larger, stimulus is a deficit of courage and leadership. Democrats will never learn, that the best interest of big business and the best interests of the country as a whole are rarely aligned.

I’m still convinced that it’s not graft that he is after, but rather he wants to be liked, by all parties, and as a result is liked by none. Moreover his failures are failures of leadership and a failure to make any hard decision, unless that decision fucks with the nameless citizen.

I really thought he would be able to make the tough choices and fight for those choices. Wrong on both accounts, what a coward and a piss poor leader.

So true and the result is a more radical Congress (mostly on the right). I think we will also start to see some of the more timid “liberals” being primaried too.

In other words, 80% of Americans couldn’t care less about the scare tactics of Wall Street billionaires like Pete Peterson and fifth-generation dynastic scions like Max Baucus.

The next two years are going to be hell for Obummer. True hell. If he doesn’t wake up, which I doubt. He’s sorta smug–like lots of rich, out-of-touch elites. It’s really looking like Hoover 2. What’s unreal about all this is that so-called liberals believed he was the FDR. But what’s scary is that there is no FDR waiting in the wings, unless he is primaried in 2012–which is also doubtful.

In other words, we are screwed. How do you manufacture an FDR when we are living in way worse right wing times and the Democratic Party is way more right wing than in the Thirties?

Obama = Blue Dog status quo corporatist.

he wants to be liked, by all parties

This fails for the very simple reason that Obama doesn’t give a shit if progressives, and a large chunk of the base of the Democratic Party, like him or not.

.

There’s a lot of this that goes around. When Bush was in office there were articles wondering which was the more apt comparison to him: FDR or Churchill.

This is confusing. How does this question square with #25?

25. Do you think the federal government should spend more money to try to boost the economy in a way that creates jobs, or do you think that whether or not jobs are created should be left to the private sector?

Should Spend More = 48

Should Spend Less = 48

No opinion = 4

What makes America grow is productive jobs, mostly in the private sector.

Well, the financial sector is thinking of hiring. Oh wait, you said productive jobs.

Since Team Obama has for months stated that they have already created as many jobs as they intend to spend political capital on, the results of this poll is probably less interesting to them than getting the cat food commission up and running government spending. In a way I almost agree with them. The previous attempt at job stimulus created very few, may have helped save a few and false counted even more temporary jobs. If this was the best way 800 billion could be spent then the only big winners were those people running corporations. The problem with simply throwing money at the unemployment is that one of the central reasons that jobs are disappearing is that we have a tax code as well as rules around brilliant ideas like NAFTA that need to be changed before spending to promote jobs would succeed. Since the majority of Ds seem to have no more interest in fixing this than actually reforming the financial system we get to watch them feign disappointment, promise solutions and wait for the next lobbyist funded problem to enter the national dialog.

Unlike Bush who often quoted polls that he claimed to be unaware of, it is possible that Team Obama really has an agenda that they fully recognize to be unpopular with their base. In which case the results of these sorts of polls are already expected and discounted. Certainly it is clear in Obama’s speeches that he neither sees a problem nor does he intend to pursue a different course. Even previous Obama stalwarts like Mort Zuckerman now are publicly preaching to an increasingly tone-deaf administration.

I do agree with runfastabdwin, however, that the President and his team need to push those things that will cause private business to hire more people.

This strategy cannot possibly work and is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money to pursue because not enough people can afford to buy anything. Therefore, the private sector cannot sell anything and obviously has no incentive to hire more people and increase production, no matter how much money or tax incentives the government throws at it.

Worse yet, businesses might pull a Whirlpool and use taxpayer money to fire all of its employees and relocate to a foreign country.

How does the second part of that question even fit into the answers given? It looks like a confounder. This often happens in polling. Ask, do you favor A, and you will get a high favorable count. Ask, do you favor A in the presence of B, and you will get a more unfavorable count. What we should be looking to is further polling on this subject. Overtime a lot of the confounders cancel out and the underlying trend becomes clear.

How about all the Democrats and so-called liberals that continue to flout GOP obstruction as the reason for the current failures. When you have near super majorities in both chambers that argument is a real loser. I would find it easier to believe if 1) they blew up the senate rules and dramatically changed the filibuster and 2) they tossed people like Ben Nelson out of the caucus, DINO only hurt the party, not help. Yet even with that the president is unwilling to take a stand on an issue and defend it, instead its an amorphous policy goal, with details filled in based on who he can appease. They don’t fight for anything and then once the law is finally outlined, you are a bad person if you don’t support the “best” deal that they could have gotten, even though they didn’t try for more.

Yes, Obummer is a dogmatic adherent to right wing neoliberalism, like all of the Washington pols. They are ideologues, though they deny it up and down. They are unwilling to admit neoliberal globalization is a categorical failure. Obummer is hardly a pragmatist.

“I’m starting to feel that big business wants the Republicans back in control, or at the very least move the country further to the right”

It seems like Obama is doing that himself and not just on matters of big business. I’m not really surprised that Obama is a corproratist (though I have been surprised at to what extent of one he is), but what has surprised me is his record with indefinite denentions and the like…like who cares if you close Gitmo if all you do is then replace it with Gitmo North (Thompson) and Gitmo Middle East (Bagram) – closing Gitmo just becomes all style and no substance.

The only solution that will create jobs and jumpstart the economy is for the government to hire people and put them to work cleaning up the gulf and fixing and modernizing our infrastructure.

The thing is it was argued that the original stimulus was much too small, and it was, but I think it’s not just that they aren’t itching for the fight, but that they lack that whole “big idea” gene. Why not take this opportunity to expand wi-fi, replan cities away from inefficient burbs, light rail, a commitment for a national rail system, a smart power grid (one that can also carrying electricity over vast expanses without losing current)? Now’s the time to spend and make capital investments, to lift American spirits. I fell we’ve gotten to the point where no institution, governmental or private, can tackle any of this nations substantive problems and we keep electing people without the ideas and without the will.

The deficit hysteria is being played for every penny it’s worth. Just last night, local news host tossed off this little nugget: that the US’s budget deficit is now 12T dollars. No facts, no sources, no backup. Just cut to commericial.

It is a campaign to freak people out.

Yes. They are so intimidated by the Grover Norquist lunatic fringe that they actually believe their lies. Plus, can’t have anything that might even in a teensy way impact anyone’s bottom line, like good wages.

Shout down deficit hysteria!

My guess is that BP is still in charge because Obama’s people recognize the potential health hazards and how much it would cost for the government to do do thing right. BP can use tricks like $200 a day compensation caps, feigned ignorance of health risks and job lotteries to keep their costs down. By leaving the task to an unassigned third party they hope to contain costs. BP will instead get massive tax credits as payment in kind while not actually having to go through an otherwise mandated government bid process. BP and Team Obama are amortizing the cost over time with the expectation that the creatively introduced lottery makes continued exposure appear legally voluntary on a daily basis. Sneaky stuff.

The WaPo’s article about the poll findings is (hopefully) being rewritten by bloggers as we speak type.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/13/124133/603
Dan Balz’s lie:

On the question of Obama’s leadership, 42 percent of registered voters now say they have confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country, with 58 saying they do not. At the start of his presidency, about six in 10 expressed confidence in his decision-making.

But when you check the polling data:

If you open the raw data link in the article you will discover that the break down on the question was actually:
24% said they had a “great deal” of confidence
19% said they had a “good amount”
28% said “just some” and
29% said “none at all.”

Had any real vision been the motivation for smaller, targeted solutions such as you outlined, even if the aggregate was greater than 800 billion, then it might have worked out fairly well. Instead it was mostly pork, tax cuts(!) and some money to help some states continue to pay their bills. The vision would have been required during the architecting, which Obama was studiously not involved in, and was unfixable by the time the lobbyists had refashioned it to their liking. The same story repeated over and over with this administration.

I felt compelled to log in to point out what I hope my username already tells you.

This article, and particularly the headline, is both wrong and misleading.

The actual polling data from the WaPo/ABC poll can be found here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_07132010.html?sid=ST2010071300027

Question 25 (without which Question 26 makes NO SENSE) reads:

25. Do you think the federal government should spend more money to try to boost the economy in a way that creates jobs, or do you think that whether or not jobs are created should be left to the private sector?

Should Spend More: 48%

Left to the Private Sector: 48%

No Opinion: 4%

So Americans are split 50/50 about whether the government should spend more money, even when the impetus to create jobs is clearly stated.

Question 26 IS DIRECTED ONLY AT PEOPLE WHO RESPONDED FAVORABLY TO QUESTION 25. Meaning that only people who said that we “should spend more” were asked. Of that 48%, 80% said that we should, even at the cost of a higher deficit, and 18% (of the original 48%) said that we should not.

I wouldn’t be cheering these numbers. It means that even out of people who are in favor of a second round of government spending, nearly 20% are against it if it significantly raises the deficit.

A better summary of what I’m referring to can be found here:
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/inside-wapoabc-poll-democrats-worst.html

Blue Texan, please do not misread and twist poll data for the sake of an easy headline when the raw data shows public sentiment far different then what you suggest.

edit: edited for formatting

Agreed. Seems to be the Democratic playbook. Halfheartedly put forth an idea, not fight for it, allow it to be watered down or completely destroyed, and then claim impotence at the obstruction of the cyanide (REP) party. In the end: nothing done and “Mission Accomplished”……

Check THIS out:
Your actions now can stop $25 Billion in new nuke taxpayer loans!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/53948

Some “deficit cutting” huh?

Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark.

Actually, if you read the Wikipedia entry on Hoover, Hoover sounds substantially more leftish than Obummer. Blew my mind. I think Hoover cared, but my sense is that Obummer doesn’t. Hard to tell. But both were/are incompetent and hands-off types.

Actually the spending ceiling was raised to 14.3 just before the new year. The current debt is 13 trillion and unless the FSEs debt is brought onto the Feds books the ceiling will be hit around November. Some have argued that the current budget was put in by Pelosi to avoid passing a new budget as the ceiling loomed.

If Fannie and Freddies 4.3T debt is openly acknowledged we rip through the ceiling in short order. In the Feds recent outstanding mortgage debt they put the FSEs debt on their sheets but the numbers are currently not reflected in the total.

Big numbers.

I don’t need a poll to tell me we have to attack unemployment and I know of no better way to do it then to spend money. But, hey, if you really are worried about the deficit and Greece, then reverse the Bush tax cuts and start a large railroad project somewhere to soak up the excess cash.

I think Hoover understood that he had to appear to care, whether it was true or not. The country as a whole is quite a bit more to the right than was true 90 years ago.

You are absolutely right — the mistake was not intentional, I assure you. Fixed.

thisiswrong? you are wrong!

news flash, the USA economy is driven by consumer consumption.

when consumers consume the USA economy grows, if consumers do not consume the private sector reduces cost.

It is pretty simple, when people buy, businesses invest and hire.

the only party that get consumers to consume at the current time is the govt.

Hoover, I mean Obama does not understand this simple point, see FDR increase consumer spending by putting people to work, building dams, highways, schools, federal court houses, etc.

thisiswrong why would the business sector increase production when consumption is at a trickle?

I can’t tell who’s making the mistake: the debt is on the order of $12 trillion; the deficit is on the order of $1 trillion.

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

According to this, China holds less even than $1 trillion of US public debt.

Unemployed people need jobs that pay decent wages and then they can go out and spend money. That’s what FDR figured out during the Great Hoover REpublican Depression in the early 1930s. And FDR created the Works Progress Administration and millions of Americans were hired to do real work, useful work improving our country’s infrastructure. O. can do the same thing now…

Tax cuts are almost a total waste. They don’t create demand. They just cut the government’s ability to spend money and thus create jobs. The problem in our economy is that many people are newly-poor and traditionally poor. They need good-paying jobs and if they have some job security, they will spend money and get the economy going again…

We need to stop wasting billions of dollars each month on our worthless stupid imperial occupations. Ratholes/quagmires…

True, but the WaPo compares apples and oranges to arrive at a completely misleading result. Question 25 asks whether the US should rely on the private sector or the government to pull the economy out of the ditch it’s in. Question 26 asks if the US should spend lots of money regardless of whether or not it increases the deficit.
I strongly disagree that the two questions should be combined as they measure two completely different things.

It seems to me and many I know that what is most wrong with the economy and joblessness is that corporate America is allowed to off-shore our jobs and make a huge profit, if we forced them to return most of the jobs they took away, we would see a lot of things fixed…such as local & states receiving more tax dollars from working people,less unemployment being paid out, more people with health care,less spent by goverment to provide for these people.More people feeling better about buying what corporate America is selling. We are allowing China to have all our money and then cry over our economy and lack of jobs. The second part of this is once these jobs are back the companies need to be treated fairly, they should pay a fair wage and provide health insurance for those who need it. The goverment should not have to tax and spend to provide jobs they should tax those who take them away.Someone once used the term “trickle down effect” well that is this economy from all the displaced jobs. Corporate America remember for every job you eliminate…you eliminate a consumer!