Why is Obama’s popularity declining?

[archerships]

theferret

Obama would not only have to sell America on a new health care plan but defend the merits of government and talk about the limitations of the free market, which the Republicans have demonized and fetishized respectively

Sure, some Republicans _claim_ to support free markets. But what do they do once they’re actually in office? Take a look at this graph:

Adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending under Bush increased by more than it did under under LBJ (and every president in between). LBJ also had a war to fund, not to mention a few little programs such as Medicare, and Medicaid.

So a lot of people who were worried about the unchecked growth of government spending under Bush figured Obama couldn’t do much worse. After all, in his entire two terms, Clinton only increased spending by half the amount Bush did in just his first term.

Unfortunately, once in office, Obama has increased spending so much as to make Bush look like a Depression-era grandma. Take a look at this graph of annual deficits under Obama:

Obama has pushed for trillions in corporate welfare to prop up GM, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Goldman Sachs. His plan to “get us out of Iraq” will still leave 50,000 troops in country, and he’s increased troops in Afghanistan. His record on civil liberties has proven little better than Bush’s when it comes to gay rights, warrantless wiretapping, torture, and drugs.

And now he’s pushing for Obamacare, a 1000+ page Frankenstein monster of spending and regulation, that neither he nor anyone in Congress has even read in full.

So, yes, Obama’s having trouble selling his monster to the public. Bush’s approval ratings were low not because he supported free markets, but because he was fascist spendthrift. Now that Obama’s proving himself to be more of the same, is it any wonder that he’s losing support?

Comments

[greendalek.livejournal.com]

Shocked, SHOCKED I tell you. No WAY did I see this coming!

*grin*

[lucy-chronicles.livejournal.com]

i'd love to see the first chart w/ updated numbers from 2007 through mass spending end of q2 2009.
;-p

shadowstats may also have something relevant

[pasquin.livejournal.com]

I not sure that spendthriftery is the problem. It's not winning. Bush's war dragged on, Obama's healthcare debate drags on.

We're a sitcom culture wanting to switch programs when the show gets boring. Remember, half of us pay no more in taxes no matter how high the spending goes.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I think fiscal responsibility is popular. Reagan did pretty well on that platform (as did Obama, who said he would not increase net spending).

Of course, I don't think the public has a coherent set of "wants". Some factions want low taxes, some want high spending. (And as you note, some pay no federal taxes.) Winning coalitions cobble together a set of proposals that win enough voters from enough factions to beat the other guy. The fiscal responsibility faction is pretty large, and you have to win them over or avoid pissing them off to win. Obama's fiscal policies are an epic fail, and he's not making the other factions in his coalition happy enough to make up for it.

[madbard.livejournal.com]

Without disputing your analysis of Obama's actions in office... is that reason he's losing popularity? How aware are people of these facts?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I think it's why he's losing support among independents, who were key to his victory in 2008.

Most people are deeply ignorant (30% couldn't tell you who the VP is), but among those who follow politics, I think the facts above are becoming better known and are a contributing factor to his decreasing popularity.

[madbard.livejournal.com]

Here's hoping!

[bunny42.livejournal.com]

Woo hoo! Seconded!

Nobody's factoring in population growth in these figures, though. Naturally, spending will increase as a function of population growth. Won't it?

I recently read yet another piece comparing U.S. and Canadian health care costs. Well, duh! Canada had 1/10 the population. Could that influence how much their government has to spend? Canada has fewer people than the state of California (I wonder how many are actual citizens paying taxes) so such comparisons seem questionable at best.

[danlyke.livejournal.com]

Not disputing the idea that health care costs may be related to population density, and not necessarily promoting Canadian health care, but all the figures I've seen quoted for relative spending have been per-capita for both.

[bunny42.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did think of that, but I'm still convinced that it costs more, even per capita, to cover more people, in terms of number of doctors and facilities required, amount of tax dollars exacted to cover veterans, seniors, indigent (Medicaid) etc. It may not be the whole difference, but it at least factors in.

[danlyke.livejournal.com]

It's been a while since I've looked at the numbers, so I may totally be talking out my butt here, but I think that last time I went searching for gun death numbers I think I found that the U.S.'s knife murder rate is higher than Canada's murder rate. Thus arguments about the easy availability of firearms in the U.S. are somewhat moot: We're killin' more people with kitchen knives, clearly the issue isn't firearms.

Start to break that down by economic class (which, I believe, was also highly correlated with race, but I don't remember the details on that), and I also think I remember that the profiles between countries started to look similar.

So it could be (again, talking off the top here without actually verifying any of my assertions of memory) as you say that Canada's costs are additionally constrained by a different demographic profile than the U.S. has.

[bunny42.livejournal.com]

Canada has a not-insignificant illegal Chinese immigrant population on the West Coast. Do you happen to know if the Canadian health system is required to cover the illegals, as well? A fair portion of our own funding woes relate to hospital ER costs of treating illegal aliens. The proposed reform bill purports not to include illegal aliens, but, if so, what happens to them? There are arguably as many as 20 million illegals who will still be clambering for health care. Does Canada have that problem, too? I'm not advocating including illegals. Personally, I think they're breaking the law by being here and should be deported, to come back here legally, if they so desire. But my inclination is apparently not the norm, so what's going to happen to them, should they end up excluded from the new reforms?

[discopete1.livejournal.com]

Not only are Canadians healthier for cheaper health-care, but the federal fiscal picture looks a lot healthier too!

I don't know exactly how it works with each province for illegal aliens, but as a visiting American, my daughter had to pay out of pocket. One of the doctors, who had moved to Canada from the US, groaned and stated that he hated having to do non-OHIP paperwork. My 2-year old son went to a walk-in clinic with pneumonia on Christmas Eve, and we were out of there with a diagnosis, prescription, and $40 lighter.

I'd love to see an actual breakdown of the numbers, but I don't think illegal aliens are the deciding factor in the higher US healthcare costs per capita. A very lousy incentive program does seem to be a likely culprit in my mind. That and about 5-times the bureaucracy for 1/2 the efficiency.

Sorry for the rant, but I just got my third bill that I need to dispute from a provider, which will involve a 4-way call and likely still not get resolved. Makes me shake my head everytime people fuss about a government bureaucrat gettting involved.

[bunny42.livejournal.com]

Oh! I didn't mean to imply that the ER situation was the whole problem. Far from it. But it is definitely a contributing factor, and I was curious whether Canadian health care covered illegals.

I was one of those government bureaucrats, and even though I was one of the good ones, with a decent work ethic, I've seen from the inside how messed up things can get when you create a government agency to "solve" your problem. To begin with, they are never, EVER, well-enough financed or staffed. Every year, it seems, you're expected to do twice as much with half as many people. A lot of those people get frustrated and just shut down, doing the barest minimum they can to get by, and we all suffer for it. For some reason, civilians view government agencies as having endless funding and way too many employees. Having actually worked for one, I can't understand where that impression comes from, but there you go. It makes me literally cringe to think of my health and potential wellness being decided or acted upon by a typical government bureaucracy. No, thank you. I'll go to bat with a private insurer any day! And have.

[vyus.livejournal.com]

these charts really bring home what it means to be "fiscally conservative" in today's US.

is this copy-and-paste from a theferret post?

[denshi.livejournal.com]

Why is his popularity declining? Because the legislative process is less fun, and more opaque, than the electoral process. Every president sees popularity fall after inauguration.

And now he’s pushing for Obamacare, a 1000+ page Frankenstein monster of spending and regulation, that neither he nor anyone in Congress has even read in full.

Now you're just mindlessly repeating GOP talking points? There are 5 proposed bills (3 in senate, 2 in house). Which one is 'Obamacare', and how do you know that no one has read them?

Compare and contrast the length of those bills with the length of other substantial bills: http://thomas.loc.gov

Whatever happened to “civis Romanus sum”?

Re: is this copy-and-paste from a theferret post?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is a copy and paste. I figure very few people are gonna read it deep in his comments, and it deserved a broader audience.

There are 5 proposed bills (3 in senate, 2 in house). Which one is 'Obamacare'

I was referring to this house version here.

You're right that I don't know that no member of Congress or the President have read it in full. But I think it is highly unlikely that Obama or the members of Congress have read any of the proposals in full. (Their aides on the other hand, probably have.)