GOP poll shows Dems have advantage on key issues

[mash107]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are widely viewed by the public as less competent than Democrats to handle issue ranging from health care to education and energy, according to internal polling presented to top GOP officials in Congress.

The same survey found President Barack Obama holds the support of a significant minority of self-described conservative, independent voters.

The Associated Press obtained partial results of the survey, which was conducted in late March by New Models, a firm with close ties to Republicans. GOP lawmakers in Congress have generally opposed Obama's early legislative agenda, voting with near unanimity against economic stimulus legislation and unanimously against a White House-backed budget that cleared Congress on Wednesday.

The survey found the public holds greater confidence in Democrats than in Republicans in handling most of the issues that are involved in Obama's legislative agenda.

Democrats were favored by a margin of 61 percent to 29 percent on education; 59 percent to 30 percent on health care and 59 percent to 31 percent on energy. Congress is expected to consider major legislation later this year in all three areas.

Democats were also viewed with more confidence in handling taxes, long a Republican strong suit. The only issue among nine in the survey where the two parties were rated as even was in the war on terror.

The survey found Obama's job approval at 62 percent, in line with other recent polls. Moderate Republicans disapproved of his job performance by a relatively narrow margin of 44-39 percent, and self-described conservative independents by a somewhat larger margin of 51-36 percent. Conservative Republicans overwhelmingly disapproved, 75-18.

The GOP has a lot of problems in that its policies are widely viewed as causing the economic mess and the huge debt.

That is why the Murdoch outlets are doing their best to talk down the economy and destroy confidence. If they can keep the recession going, they'll be a good position to recoup losses in 2010. If the economy is rebouding nicely, they are toast. They know it.

Glad you finally link huge debt with our economic mess.. Now the answer surely isn't to tack on another $2trillion, right? As incompetent as Bush's adminstration was, doing more of the same isn't the answer.

 

[Missourian]

I'd like to add that of course the dems will be ahead on all these issues, they are giving a populist message, all things for all people, not a responsible one.

Like all 'giveawy govs' this only works while the money lasts, and right now the money is just about gone.

I'd love to have free health care and all kinds of other perks, but I understand that the price tag for this is out of reach, trying to bilk the wealthy won't work, they will hide and remove their money fast if they haven't done it already.

An economy and budget has to have a solid footing based in reality, Queen nan has her head in the clouds, she throws billions at everything as if she has a money tree they keeps sprouting more cash.

The left used to call Bush and the GoP 'children,' but here we see the current democratic government acting like kids in a candy shoppe, eating everything in site and no concern for the long term consequnces.

All this spending is going to flip us from recession into depression, they quietly just annouced that the last quarter was worse then the previuous two, there was no improvement at all.

STOP THE SPENDING, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

New Sign in front of the White House?​

ATM out front, printing press in the rear.​

 

[Iriemon]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are widely viewed by the public as less competent than Democrats to handle issue ranging from health care to education and energy, according to internal polling presented to top GOP officials in Congress.

The same survey found President Barack Obama holds the support of a significant minority of self-described conservative, independent voters.

The Associated Press obtained partial results of the survey, which was conducted in late March by New Models, a firm with close ties to Republicans. GOP lawmakers in Congress have generally opposed Obama's early legislative agenda, voting with near unanimity against economic stimulus legislation and unanimously against a White House-backed budget that cleared Congress on Wednesday.

The survey found the public holds greater confidence in Democrats than in Republicans in handling most of the issues that are involved in Obama's legislative agenda.

Democrats were favored by a margin of 61 percent to 29 percent on education; 59 percent to 30 percent on health care and 59 percent to 31 percent on energy. Congress is expected to consider major legislation later this year in all three areas.

Democats were also viewed with more confidence in handling taxes, long a Republican strong suit. The only issue among nine in the survey where the two parties were rated as even was in the war on terror.

The survey found Obama's job approval at 62 percent, in line with other recent polls. Moderate Republicans disapproved of his job performance by a relatively narrow margin of 44-39 percent, and self-described conservative independents by a somewhat larger margin of 51-36 percent. Conservative Republicans overwhelmingly disapproved, 75-18.

The GOP has a lot of problems in that its policies are widely viewed as causing the economic mess and the huge debt.

That is why the Murdoch outlets are doing their best to talk down the economy and destroy confidence. If they can keep the recession going, they'll be a good position to recoup losses in 2010. If the economy is rebouding nicely, they are toast. They know it.

Glad you finally link huge debt with our economic mess.. Now the answer surely isn't to tack on another $2trillion, right? As incompetent as Bush's adminstration was, doing more of the same isn't the answer.

I didn't make a link; but a severe recession would cost a lot more than the $2 trillion stimulus to avoid it.

How did such an incompetent president get elected twice? Makes you scratch your head, doesn't it?

 

[Iriemon]

I'd like to add that of course the dems will be ahead on all these issues, they are giving a populist message, all things for all people, not a responsible one.

Like all 'giveawy govs' this only works while the money lasts, and right now the money is just about gone.

I'd love to have free health care and all kinds of other perks, but I understand that the price tag for this is out of reach, trying to bilk the wealthy won't work, they will hide and remove their money fast if they haven't done it already.

An economy and budget has to have a solid footing based in reality, Queen nan has her head in the clouds, she throws billions at everything as if she has a money tree they keeps sprouting more cash.

The left used to call Bush and the GoP 'children,' but here we see the current democratic government acting like kids in a candy shoppe, eating everything in site and no concern for the long term consequnces.

All this spending is going to flip us from recession into depression, they quietly just annouced that the last quarter was worse then the previuous two, there was no improvement at all.

STOP THE SPENDING, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

New Sign in front of the White House?​

ATM out front, printing press in the rear.​

I wonder where people get these ideas that banks can print money? I hear this too often for it to be a just randomly generated belief. Someone who is fairly popular must be spreading this claim. Ron Paul? Rush Limbaugh?

 

[wimpy77]

I'd like to add that of course the dems will be ahead on all these issues, they are giving a populist message, all things for all people, not a responsible one.

Like all 'giveawy govs' this only works while the money lasts, and right now the money is just about gone.

I'd love to have free health care and all kinds of other perks, but I understand that the price tag for this is out of reach, trying to bilk the wealthy won't work, they will hide and remove their money fast if they haven't done it already.

An economy and budget has to have a solid footing based in reality, Queen nan has her head in the clouds, she throws billions at everything as if she has a money tree they keeps sprouting more cash.

The left used to call Bush and the GoP 'children,' but here we see the current democratic government acting like kids in a candy shoppe, eating everything in site and no concern for the long term consequnces.

All this spending is going to flip us from recession into depression, they quietly just annouced that the last quarter was worse then the previuous two, there was no improvement at all.

STOP THE SPENDING, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.

New Sign in front of the White House?​

ATM out front, printing press in the rear.​

I wonder where people get these ideas that banks can print money? I hear this too often for it to be a just randomly generated belief. Someone who is fairly popular must be spreading this claim. Ron Paul? Rush Limbaugh?

perhaps but i cant believe how stupid people are to believe it.

 

[Missourian]

New Sign in front of the White House?​

ATM out front, printing press in the rear.​

I wonder where people get these ideas that banks can print money? I hear this too often for it to be a just randomly generated belief. Someone who is fairly popular must be spreading this claim. Ron Paul? Rush Limbaugh?

perhaps but i cant believe how stupid people are to believe it.

Uhhh...the First National Bank of "Barry"...as in Barry Obama....in front of the White House...you know, where the President lives and works.

From ABC News TODAY:

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Yes, the Feds personal consumer and expenditure index shows that inflation, that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, rose by 1.5 per cent over the three months to the end of March. That's at the lower end of the Fed's expectations and shows that inflation really isn't a problem, which will feed into today's meeting of the US Federal Reserve (the central bank of the United States). Again, they're deciding just what action to take to try to revive US activity through monetary measures. Of course, they can't do much with conventional measures, given that the Federal funds rate is already near zero. But expect to see in about five hours, when the Fed releases its statement, confirmation that they're going to take further efforts in unconventional ways like buying bonds, pumping more liquidity into the system, effectively printing money to ease those credit markets and boost economic activity. And, Ali, for first time in successive meetings there's a great deal of interest in what the wording of the Fed statement is going to involve. It's going to be very interesting to see whether Ben Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed share that muted optimism at the White House about possible recoveries in various parts of the US economy.

Lateline Business - 30/04/2009: US economy shrinking faster than expected

​

 

[Iriemon]

I wonder where people get these ideas that banks can print money? I hear this too often for it to be a just randomly generated belief. Someone who is fairly popular must be spreading this claim. Ron Paul? Rush Limbaugh?

perhaps but i cant believe how stupid people are to believe it.

Uhhh...the First National Bank of "Barry"...as in Barry Obama....in front of the White House...you know, where the President lives and works.

From ABC News TODAY:

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Yes, the Feds personal consumer and expenditure index shows that inflation, that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, rose by 1.5 per cent over the three months to the end of March. That's at the lower end of the Fed's expectations and shows that inflation really isn't a problem, which will feed into today's meeting of the US Federal Reserve (the central bank of the United States). Again, they're deciding just what action to take to try to revive US activity through monetary measures. Of course, they can't do much with conventional measures, given that the Federal funds rate is already near zero. But expect to see in about five hours, when the Fed releases its statement, confirmation that they're going to take further efforts in unconventional ways like buying bonds, pumping more liquidity into the system, effectively printing money to ease those credit markets and boost economic activity. And, Ali, for first time in successive meetings there's a great deal of interest in what the wording of the Fed statement is going to involve. It's going to be very interesting to see whether Ben Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed share that muted optimism at the White House about possible recoveries in various parts of the US economy.

Lateline Business - 30/04/2009: US economy shrinking faster than expected

​

Ha ha you caught me there.

I've actually read so many posts where people actually assert that private banks can just print up money I wasn't surprised to think this was another one.

 

[Missourian]

perhaps but i cant believe how stupid people are to believe it.

Uhhh...the First National Bank of "Barry"...as in Barry Obama....in front of the White House...you know, where the President lives and works.

From ABC News TODAY:

MICHAEL ROWLAND: Yes, the Feds personal consumer and expenditure index shows that inflation, that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, rose by 1.5 per cent over the three months to the end of March. That's at the lower end of the Fed's expectations and shows that inflation really isn't a problem, which will feed into today's meeting of the US Federal Reserve (the central bank of the United States). Again, they're deciding just what action to take to try to revive US activity through monetary measures. Of course, they can't do much with conventional measures, given that the Federal funds rate is already near zero. But expect to see in about five hours, when the Fed releases its statement, confirmation that they're going to take further efforts in unconventional ways like buying bonds, pumping more liquidity into the system, effectively printing money to ease those credit markets and boost economic activity. And, Ali, for first time in successive meetings there's a great deal of interest in what the wording of the Fed statement is going to involve. It's going to be very interesting to see whether Ben Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed share that muted optimism at the White House about possible recoveries in various parts of the US economy.

Lateline Business - 30/04/2009: US economy shrinking faster than expected

​

Ha ha you caught me there.

I've actually read so many posts where people actually assert that private banks can just print up money I wasn't surprised to think this was another one.

My fault, "Barry" was a rather obscure reference. I parked it front of this bank in Barry, Illinois last week and took the picture.

 

[Meister]

The GOP has a lot of problems in that its policies are widely viewed as causing the economic mess and the huge debt.

That is why the Murdoch outlets are doing their best to talk down the economy and destroy confidence. If they can keep the recession going, they'll be a good position to recoup losses in 2010. If the economy is rebouding nicely, they are toast. They know it.

Glad you finally link huge debt with our economic mess.. Now the answer surely isn't to tack on another $2trillion, right? As incompetent as Bush's adminstration was, doing more of the same isn't the answer.

I didn't make a link; but a severe recession would cost a lot more than the $2 trillion stimulus to avoid it.

How did such an incompetent president get elected twice? Makes you scratch your head, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

Not when you put an Al Gore, or a John Kerry against him

 

[Iriemon]

Glad you finally link huge debt with our economic mess.. Now the answer surely isn't to tack on another $2trillion, right? As incompetent as Bush's adminstration was, doing more of the same isn't the answer.

I didn't make a link; but a severe recession would cost a lot more than the $2 trillion stimulus to avoid it.

How did such an incompetent president get elected twice? Makes you scratch your head, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

Not when you put an Al Gore, or a John Kerry against him

I would have taken and would still take Gore over Bush in a heartbeat. Kerry was not the best choice for the Dems in 2004 IMO.

 

[Meister]

I didn't make a link; but a severe recession would cost a lot more than the $2 trillion stimulus to avoid it.

How did such an incompetent president get elected twice? Makes you scratch your head, doesn't it?[/QUOTE]

Not when you put an Al Gore, or a John Kerry against him

I would have taken and would still take Gore over Bush in a heartbeat. Kerry was not the best choice for the Dems in 2004 IMO.

Gore? Oh brother......

 

[Iriemon]

I would have taken and would still take Gore over Bush in a heartbeat. Kerry was not the best choice for the Dems in 2004 IMO.

Gore? Oh brother......

I'll see your Gore oh brother and counter with "Bush oh my god"

 

[Meister]

Gore? Oh brother......

I'll see your Gore oh brother and counter with "Bush oh my god"

If there was someone better than Bush to vote for, I would have voted for him. I'm not so sure you would vote for the best person...but more along your party lines. This is where I differ from you.

 

[Newby]

I'll see your Gore oh brother and counter with "Bush oh my god"

If there was someone better than Bush to vote for, I would have voted for him. I'm not so sure you would vote for the best person...but more along your party lines. This is where I differ from you.

Yep, he would never vote for anyone with an (R) after their name.

 

[Sarah G]

I'll see your Gore oh brother and counter with "Bush oh my god"

If there was someone better than Bush to vote for, I would have voted for him. I'm not so sure you would vote for the best person...but more along your party lines. This is where I differ from you.

That year was Democrats hitting bottom. Actually it was bottom when we lost the senate to them. Gore was a terrible candidate and so were Kerry/Edwards but we are recovering quickly.

I don't want Harry Reid at the helm even if he manages to win his seat this time, the extreme partisans are really not going to survive too awfully long and no, Obama is not in that group, imo.

 

[Iriemon]

If there was someone better than Bush to vote for, I would have voted for him. I'm not so sure you would vote for the best person...but more along your party lines. This is where I differ from you.

Yep, he would never vote for anyone with an (R) after their name.

That is quite false, I voted for Reagan twice and Bush1 in his first run.

 

[Newby]

Yeah, I believe that one.

 

[Iriemon]

Yeah, I believe that one.

You've show how you are willing to believe things you know nothing about based on false assumptions and then make false statements about it. So no surprise here.

 

[sealybobo]

Yep, he would never vote for anyone with an (R) after their name.

That is quite false, I voted for Reagan twice and Bush1 in his first run.

Same here. I wasn't old enough until Bush1's second run, but I supported Reagan/Bush until the economy took a dump and I realized that Bush1 didn't keep one campaign promise. And then the Newt GOP in the 90's turned me off, and don't even get me started on the GOP from 2000-2008.

 

[Meister]

That is quite false, I voted for Reagan twice and Bush1 in his first run.

Same here. I wasn't old enough until Bush1's second run, but I supported Reagan/Bush until the economy took a dump and I realized that Bush1 didn't keep one campaign promise. And then the Newt GOP in the 90's turned me off, and don't even get me started on the GOP from 2000-2008.

Eh, nobody was getting you started, bobo. I think that was Iriemon, Newby, and myself...so go troll elsewhere.