Subscribe!
Navigation
Tags
Categories
Thursday
21May

Americans like Obama but not his policies

There has been a topic being bounced around on BipartReport.com lately--mainly between @rblinne and myself. We both recognize that President is quite popular, but where @rblinne believes that Americans love what Obama is doing, I think President Obama is popular based on his persona, not on his policies. Poll after poll shows that while people believe that America is on the "Right Track" and "Moving in the Right Direction" and that they "Approve" of President Obama. When Obama's policies are are polled without reference to him, though, a very different story is told.

Right track/wrong track and approve/disapprove polls are meaningless when discussing the "cult of personality" phenomena. If you ask "Do you support Obama banning lollipops?", you will get a far higher positive response than if you say "Do you support the banning of lollipops?'. Polls have shown that when you separate policies from Obama, they are less popular. The exact opposite was true of Pesident Bush. If you asked "Do you support Bush's position on the waterboarding of detainees?", you got a far more negative response than if you asked "Do you support the waterboarding of detainees?".

CNN ran a poll indicating that 63% of Americans approve of Obama, but when asked if they agree with his policies, the number dropped to 57%. This shows that there is a gap between Obama as a person and his policy positions. I don't think this poll is truly accurate, though, becuase it still links Obama to his policies. If you look at how people view issues without Obama even being mentioned, you get a very different view.

Americans have two different assessments of President Obama. One, personal. The other, policy.

CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider

 

Americans still see Big Government as a larger threat than Big Busines
On April 20th, Gallup released a poll showing that the majority of Americans believe that Big Government is a greater concern than Big Business, 55% to 32% (with 10% being most concerned about Big Labor). Obama is pro-Big Government and Pro-Big Labor. If we break it down by party affiliation, Republicans are concerned about Big Government to Big Business by 80% to 10%, Independents 59% to 30%, with only Democrats favoring Big Government 52% to 32$.

Next policy, Obama is extremely pro-choice. He says he wants to reduce the number of abortions, but then in his first 100 days, he increases funding for abortions with federal dollars--with Obama it's important to see what he does, rather than what he says, since he will talk on both sides of many issues. According to the May 15th Gallup poll, more American consider themselves Pro-Life than Pro-Choice on the abortion issue, 51% to 42%. @karoli and a few others have indicated that this is probably skewed, so let's dissect it further. Only 23% believe that abortion should be "Legal Under Any" condition. Three quarters of the population believe that their should be limits on abortions--which is contrary to Obama's pledged support of the Freedom of Choice Act.

Again, CNN-Only 36% of Americans believe that bailing out the auto industry would be beneficial. 55% of Democrats and 62% of Independents oppose the bailouts.  The initial bailouts occurred under Bush, but no one argues that he was popular at the time.

According to an extensive Rasmussen survey, only 42% of Americans favor free health care for all, and that number drops to 32% if their own health care would be affected. By a two-to-one margin, people reject free healthcare for all if their 53% believe that their quality of health care will drop if it is run by the government. 54% would oppose the plan if it required slightly higher taxes.

In February with the passing of the "Stimulus" bill, only 51% percent supported the bill. While still a majority, it was significantly less than his personal support.

Again, according to Rasmussen, only 39% of Americans believe there is man made global warming, 44% believe that long term planetary trends are more to blame. Close to 80% of American oppose a tax to fight global warming. (It was not-polled, but I believe Cap and Trade and the new CAFE standards would qualify as a tax since it raises the cost of cars and energy. Another Rasmussen poll shows that only 24% know that Cap and Trade deals with global warming, 5% less than those who think it has to do with Wall Street!)  Over 58% of Americans want more nuclear power plants, Obama is a self described "non-proponent" of nuclear energy.

According to CNN, 76% believe that the automakers should have faced bankruptcy, and only 23% believed that the government should have more oversight. Curiously, when Obama is mentioned, 42% of approve of his handling on the situtation whih was just that--more government involvement. How can that be? Only 23% thing government should be more involved and then once Obama is MORE involved, suddenly people support it? It is because they like HIM personally--not his policies.

And to bring it to the homefront, us Californians overwhelmingly rejected a series of propositions that would have increased multiple taxes--knowing full well that the only alternative was cuts in spending and services.  Now, it's not directly parallel, but I can guarantee you that cutting spending is NOT an Obama policy position.  California, though a very blue state, rejected that position and told Sacramento to stop spending.

Of course California was home to another conundrum, Prop 8.  First, Obama opposed Proposition 8, California's gay marriage ban, and yet it passed in one of the most pro-Obama states in the country.  Mother Jones suggest that President Obama intentionally stayed quiet on Prop 8 because of its popularity with African-American voters.  If I am right, then his coming out actually against Prop 8 would have actually made Prop 8 LESS popular, since people like Obama for who he is and not for his policies.  In fact people will switch their stance on issues in order to align them to Obama's.  *cough* CIA photos *cough* *cough* Prosecution of Bush officials *cough*

So what?

It remains to be seen if this is a good or bad thing for Obama.  If he is the influential leader that many suggest he is, he very well could sway people's opinions and change people's stances on these issues.  This is not going to be easy for him, though, since many of the breakdowns (such as Big Government vs Big Business) have remained somewhat constant over the past few decades.  If any President can accomplish this, it would be Barack Obama.  Reagan had a similar influence, though he stood with the popular sentiment on many of the issues.

If President Obama is unsuccessful in bringing people to change their views, though, it could spell trouble.  Sooner or later people will begin to wonder why Obama is doing things they don't agree with.  While many car purchasers may like the sound of a higher milage car, when they show up at the dealership and realize that it costs 2 grand more than it would have before Obama, they may begin to question their devotion to him.  This is what I forsee happening. 

When inflation hits, interest rates skyrocket and taxes go up, will President Obama be able to mainatin his populist appeal?  We will see in the next two years.

Friday
08May

J.J. Abrams Proves That Star Trek is Still Awesome... But Also That Captain Picard is Kind Of a Dick

It has been a long, long time since I have been as excited for the release of a movie as I was for Star Trek last night. It's a series that has long been in need of a reboot, and by reboot I do not mean slapping the guy from Quantum Leap in a Starfleet uniform and letting him go meddle in the galaxy's affairs.

So, as I sat down to watch the opening show of Star Trek on IMAX last night, I decided to watch with an open mind. Yes, I have seen every Star Trek episode (of every version of the show) multiple times. Yes, I will be able to spot continuity flaws, and divergences from Canon. Yes, I know that J.J. Abrams could not POSSIBLY make this movie without pissing some Trekkies off. I was just determined to not be one of those fans who let my own love of the franchise be a stumbling block that makes it impossible to enjoy what looks to be a good movie.Mommy, Look What Captain Picard Did!

And as I watched, I was struck with three thoughts: My first thought was "How the hell did I forget my glasses in the car?" But the second thing I thought was, "Wow J.J., you managed to completely avoid ANY criticism that any Trekkie could have made about this movie." Early on, it is established that this movie occurs in an alternate reality. Nero has traveled back in time, and thus changed time. No universe ending paradox or anything like that, just an alternate reality which is real to everyone in it. They could kill future Nero and stop him from coming back and being an all around jerk, but it won't matter, because they are already in an alternate reality where he already came back and did stuff that I won't spoil for you.

Which leads me to my third thought, Captain Picard is kind of a dick. How could I possibly say such a controversial thing? Isn't it obvious? He is responsible for allowing Klingons to destroy the Enterprise and defeat the Federation in "Yesterday's Enterprise". He killed his entire crew in "Time Squared", his entire crews along with a nest of baby aliens in "Timescape", and later his entire crew in "All Good Things..." along with the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE! It's kind of hard to top the destruction of your own species, but Captain Picard is no slouch and manages to do just that by chasing the Borg into the past where they assimilate the entire earth in First Contact.Captain Picard Did This

"But, but, but... Captain Picard and the Enterprise crew were able to go back in time and SAVE everyone!" I thought so too, but apparently I was wrong too.

It's long been a staple of the Star Trek universe that if you can undo the damage done to the timeline, it will revert back to its normal not time-traveled-upon self. Blow up the time travel device in the future, and all the havoc caused in the past by it disappears. But now we learn that this is not the case. YOUR reality might stay "normal," but the alternate reality stays eternally ****ed over by the time travelers. And Trekkies should have known this, the evidence has been there all along. After all, Captain Archer went to the Mirror Universe (where everyone was evil and had beards that made them look mean) in "In a Mirror Darkly", and Captain Kirk went to the SAME Mirror Universe in "Mirror, Mirror", and the Deep Space Nine crew was also able to get to the same alternate reality in "Crossover", "Through the Looking Glass", and three other episodes. Apparently those alternate realities didn't just *wink* out when the stars of the show left.Captaion Picard's Fault

But, we've been too busy arguing about dilithium matrixes and emitting tachyon pulses through the main deflector dish to pick up on it. And so we idolized and revered a man who is single handedly responsible for the death of billions, and unspeakable devastation wreaked upon alternate reality upon alternate reality.

You might still be in denial, but did you see Captain Kirk get his father back at the end of the new Star Trek movie? Me neither. Which leaves us with two options. Either this movie completely changes the timeline, meaning that Star Trek: Enterprise is the only Star Trek season that "actually happened" (even Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan would now be irrelevant) OR this is a new and different reality, which means that every other time travelling excursion in Star Trek history ALSO left behind an alternate reality--which pretty much sucks for everyone in those alternate realities, since the Enterprise crew usually screws everything up in those realities.

BUT, it's not just Captain Picard who has spread misfortune across multiple realities. Other offenders include, but are not limited too:

  • Captain Kirk, Spock, and McCoy--Too many temporal sins to list
  • Berlinghoff Rasmussen--the fellow who stole a time pod and also tried to burglarize the Enterprise like an idiot
  • The Devidians--Went back in time to suck the life out of hobos living in San Francisco in the 1800's
  • Data, La Forge, Riker, and Crusher--Went back in time to stop The Devidians (Data forgot his head in the past--silly guy)
  • Worf's son Alexander--Came back as K'mtar to whip his younger self into shape and make him less of a loser
  • Q--just all around time-meddling ass
  • Sisko, Dax, Dr. Bashir, and Kira--Accidentally beamed into the past, where Sisko posed as a jailed terrorist who led a riot in the prison resulting in the murder of hundreds
  • Chief O'Brien--Watches DS9 be destroyed, leaves past O'Brien in the future to die on the station while future O'Brien goes back in time and takes his place.
  • Quark--Crashes his ship in Roswell and creates an alternate reality where conspiracy theory nuts claim that an alien ship crashed in Roswell... Um, yeah...
  • Janeway and Chakotay--manage to get the Voyager caught on video in the 20th century
  • Kes--travels back in time and saves the Voyager from being nearly destroyed by the Krenim, Tuvok tells her this is only one possible future obviously not realizing that it was an already existing alternate reality
  • Future Captain Janeway--Starts a new war with the Klingons in order to give past Captain Janeway a quicker way home
  • The entire Star Trek: Enterprise's show--I don't think there was a single episode that DIDN'T involve someone screwing up an alternate dimension somewhere
Thursday
23Apr

What do you know of Keynes? (No, really, I want to know!)

Considering that our President is a staunch supporter of of Keynesian economic school of thought, I am trying to wrap my head around the implications. I understand the basics, but the very premise of his entire premise seems to be inconsistent with both A) a technologically advanced society and B) a global economy. So, this is an invitation--I want to know what about Keynes appeals to you, why you think it will work, and what readings you would suggest on the subject.

From my (limited) understanding, Keynes' central theme is that full employment is the stabilizing force in an economy--not prices and wages. He argued that interest rates had little impact on savings and investment rates, but rather than investments could not be predicted since investors made decisions based on "animal spirits." He believed that wages (definitely) and prices (usually) should not decrease, that the market could not correct itself by adjust wages and prices. To deal with inflation, he believed in incomes policy (wage and price control.) Since his primary focus during a recessionary time was increasing aggregate demand in order to restore full employment, he believed that government spending could be directly linked to stimulating the economy out of a recession.

The problems I see, and hopefully smarter, wiser people can explain to me how to reconcile these with Keynesian economics, is that history seems to have debunked many of Keynes' premises. These are the issues that confuse me to no end:

  • The first problem I see, is that throughout history wage and price controls have never worked. In fact, I would argue that Hoover's wage and price controls, which continued into FDR's term, were one of the chief reasons in the Depression lasting more than a few years.And New York City has had entire communities destroyed by rent control laws.
  • Second, I do not see how Keynes would have dealt with a global market with varying labor costs. He did not include imports/exports in his model, and he assumed that labor rates were sticky. Today, outsourcing of expensive labor to countries where labor is cheaper is a real issue. It has negative impacts, but as we become more globalized, it will only become a larger issue.
  • If interest rates are less important that "animal spirits" in investing, why can changes in investment levels be tied so closely to changes in interest rates? Why do more people buy homes when interest rates are low than when they are high? Why are people less likely to use their credit cards when the rates go up?
  • Getting back to inflation, what's the plan? With the enormous about of funds that have been pumped into banks by the Fed, this is not an "if" question, it is a "when." Unemployment is high, and soon inflation will start creeping up. Keynesian economics seem to fall apart under stagflation. (Before you argue that inflation won't happen, consider the following graph. There is an enormous amount of money about to enter the economy)
  • Finally, I can find no proof that government expenditures and Real GDP are tied. Look at the numbers and the only consistency is that they are inconsistent. If changes in government expenditures is so central to the state of an economy, why are they not reflected in the data? In fact, I'd argue that the lack of proof is proof in and of itself that the economy is more responsive to wages and prices than to government spending.

While I, and virtually all conservatives, are highly dubious of Keynes' central premises, I am the type of person to put my beliefs under the microscope. I will be honest, though, in my mind classical economics and Keynesian economics are mutually exclusive. This is one case where I believe that the premise of each requires the rejection of the other. This might sound very non-bipartisan, but this may be one area where there can be no compromise.

Thursday
16Apr

Tea Parties 2009: Compare CNN's Susan Roesgen Covering Another Rally

Isn't it amazing how hypocritical some so-called journalists can be? While I don't expect any person to be completely free of bias, I do expect for people proclaiming to be journalists to at least try to be even handed, and perhaps respectful.

In this clip, you will see Susan Roesgen covering a 2006 rally in New Orleans. Near the end of the clip, the camera cuts to an image of a man wearing a George W. Bush mask with devil horns and a Hitler-esque mustache and says "while a look-alike showed up, with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not."

So, let me get this straight, a bunch of everyday conservatives (oh wait, according to the Obama Administration, we are right-wing extremists who are likely terror threats) showing up to protest the racking up of trillion dollar deficits is not reasonable--it is offensive and unfit for children.  BUT, making President Bush look like the devil and Hitler is all in good fun.

Honestly, I don't expect CNN to bitch and moan that someone doesn't like Bush.  At the same time, though, I am a little surprised when CNN objects to claims that they are clearly suffering from liberal bias.  Just admit it, guys.  Hannity does not even pretend to be A) a journalist or B) unbiased.  And that's okay.  But to claim to be an unbiased source of news insults all of our intelligence.

So, in conclusions:  Being upset that America, under Obama, is on track to rack up trillions of dollars of debt is BAD AND OFFENSIVE.  Comparing a Republican president t Hitler/Sata is no big deal.

Thursday
16Apr

Tea Parties 2009: But didn't Obama cut taxes?

Yesterday, CNN "reporter" and Obam administration apologist Susan Roesgen was harassed by mean, ignorant, right-wing extremists at a Tea Party.  Luckily, she was there to remind them that they are eligible for a $400 tax credit (which she forgot to mention will count as income and be taxed on April 15, 2010), and that Obama hasn't raised taxes on 95% of Americans.  </sarcasm> To jog your memory, here is the clip in question:

Here is the problem with the Obama administration, and the news medias coverage of their fiscal policy.  President Obama says something, and very quickly it is repeated on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS, and appears with virtually no analysis or criticism in nearly every major newspaper.  Since Obama has not yet raised income taxes of the middle class, they say that he is a champion of the middle class and the poor.

But he IS raising and trying to raise taxes on the middle class and poor!  Okay, maybe not all of the middle class and the poor.  Just those who pay utilities.  And those who give to charity (coincidentally, this hits Republicans harder than Democrats).  And those who smoke (who, as we know are predominantly poor).  And those who returned from war injured.  And those whose health care is paid by their employers.  And those who have cell phones.  Or fly on airlines.  Or drive a car.  These have ALL been proposed since January.  Some were shot down, some received significant public backlash and were shelved, some are still in the works, and some have been passed.  The point, though, is that President Obama has EVERY intention of finding ways for government to take a cut of EVERYTHING you do.  But that is not the worst of it.

President Obama is hitting our checkbooks in many ways other than taxes!  Do you have a boss?  What happens when it comes time for your annual review, and you ask for a raise, but his taxes have been raised and he cannot afford it?  And who is hardest hit by this coming wave of inflation?  We're printing money that we don't have, which is going to drive the consumer price index through the roof very shortly, which means that the $13 extra that Obama is letting you keep is going to buy less and less.  Obama and every member of Congress will be able to deal with this, but the people having a hard time making ends meet, since they have to pay their neighbors mortgage as well as their own, are not going to have such an easy time with it.

We wouldn't object to the taxes if they were being used for legitimate purposes.  The US Constitution lists the purposes of government.  Nowhere in there can I find "Stimulate the economy," "Give people the money to keep houses the can't afford," "Make responsible and frugal homeowners pay for said houses," "Start a new global order," "Save failing companies," or even "Guarantee the warranties on GM cars."  I do see that the President is supposed to be the Commander in Chief... but that seems be pretty low on his list of priorities. 

These Tea Parties were not anti-Obama or anti-government.  They were anti-waste.  They were pro-Constitution.  Half these things that President Obama is wanting to accomplish are unconstitutional.  If he wants to use my money to keep UAW union workers working and my deadbeat neighbor in his house, then he needs to amend the Constitution.  There is a process for doing this.  Sadly, there has been a slow, creeping growth in the size and power of the federal government. 

This did not happen overnight, but trillion dollar "stimulus," multi-trillion dollar deficits, and what's looking to the government's nationalization of many private companies are the breaking point.  And that is what the Tea Parties of 2009 were about.