The come-back kid

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Polls: Obama ending the year with improving approval ratings


President Barack Obama is ending the year, and his sixth year in office, on a high note — even performing better than his predecessor.

A recent Gallup poll shows Obama with a 43 percent December approval rating at the end of his sixth year in office. This puts him ahead of former President George W. Bush, who saw a 37 percent approval rating at the end of his sixth year in 2006.

The poll, published Dec. 19, also shows that former presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan enjoyed 67 percent and 48 percent approval ratings at the same point in their tenures, respectively.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Polls: Obama ending the year with improving approval ratings


President Barack Obama is ending the year, and his sixth year in office, on a high note — even performing better than his predecessor.

A recent Gallup poll shows Obama with a 43 percent December approval rating at the end of his sixth year in office. This puts him ahead of former President George W. Bush, who saw a 37 percent approval rating at the end of his sixth year in 2006.

The poll, published Dec. 19, also shows that former presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan enjoyed 67 percent and 48 percent approval ratings at the same point in their tenures, respectively.

You can easily see the pro-Obama prejudice in the article by the way they describe a 43% approval rating as being "favorable."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You can easily see the pro-Obama prejudice in the article by the way they describe a 43% approval rating as being "favorable."

Pro-Obama bias?

You don't read so good huh?

Favorable is an adjective That describes approval or good conditions. Politician's approval ratings are often described as "favorable" or "unfavorable" With regards to the publics opinion of them. Having ones Presidential approval rating in the 40's after six years in office is no small accomplishment. Just ask G.W. Bush... Oh wait, he wouldn't know would he? I suppose you could ask Bill Clinton.

 

[Que]

You could ask Reagan.

Of course that is really not a fair comparison because Reagan just happened to be in office during a roaring recovery, and the unfortunate Barry Soetoro has the unhappy coincidence of being in office during the most anemic recovery in history.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You can easily see the pro-Obama prejudice in the article by the way they describe a 43% approval rating as being "favorable."

Sometimes quick, knee-jerk reactions make you look stupid. Around here that's known as "Query Syndrome". If you keep this up we might have to begin calling it "Query/Boxlicker Syndrome".

In any event, facts have a well-known librul bias.

And that poll is a week old. Yesterday the news got even worse for America haters such as yourself: the year-end CNN poll shows President Obama now tied with St. Gipper Himself in the approval ratings (at similar points in their tenure).

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You could ask Reagan.

Of course that is really not a fair comparison because Reagan just happened to be in office during a roaring recovery, and the unfortunate Barry Soetoro has the unhappy coincidence of being in office during the most anemic recovery in history.

You couldn't actually, unless you know a really good medium. Although I hear his wife knew a couple of those.

You forgot to add that neither of them had anything to do with either.

President Reagan's recovery was orchestrated by Carter's Federal Reserve Appointee who took the country into an intentional recession to combat stagflation. President Obama had to deal with the aftermath of the biggest economic crisis since 1929, brought on by conservative deregulation of the banking industry and a decade of conservative economic theory.

 

[Que]

You couldn't actually, unless you know a really good medium. Although I hear his wife knew a couple of those.

You forgot to add that neither of them had anything to do with either.

President Reagan's recovery was orchestrated by Carter's Federal Reserve Appointee who took the country into an intentional recession to combat stagflation. President Obama had to deal with the aftermath of the biggest economic crisis since 1929, brought on by conservative deregulation of the banking industry and a decade of conservative economic theory.

The first half of that is, at least a cogent theory and possibly partially correct. The second part is nonsense.

A lot of conservative dogma on the Reagan recovery is historically inaccurate. Like for example it did not begin to recover because of tax cuts. Those were delayed for a full two years by Tip O'Neil. You would call that tactic obstructionism these days. I am of the opinion that the prospect of coming tax cuts made economic sense of business decisions that were a coin flip towards the good with or without the tax cuts. They clearly did no harm. It is speculation that they helped at all. I speculate that they did.

100% wrong on the talking point on evil banks and more evil Republican Deregulation.

Merrill Lynch was not a bank. They were never subject to the restrictions that I agree should never have been loosened allowing banks to get into securities. The crisis in derivatives was precipitated solely because of the underlying weaknesses of the bundled mortgages. A lot originated by not-Banks like Countrywide. I did a lot of sub-prime work for them at the time. As well as Meritage. Those lending guidlelines were written not by banks or mortgage brokers but straight from fannie and freddie. No bank or mortgage compan could then or now sta in business if they did not have the larger bookie of fnma and fmac to la off that paper and every single loan complied with fmna or fmac guidelines or it was not processed. This stuff was all automated and there was no cheating. There was no need to cheat on a liar loan. It is whatever the customer says it is. Low doc, no doc, 3-21- buy-downs... A lot of creative ways that Fannie dreamed up (including no down loans with what otherwise are illegal kickbacks to the buyers benefit)

All of that crashed because once everyone qualified for a loan including if you already had a house, it was the dutch tulip market and inflation that was not supported by the availability of dirt, cost of materials and labor.

So no. Banks had nothing to do with, ditto regulations.

The problem (still un-addressed) was that execs at fnma and fmac got huge bonuses for increasing the number of homes in at-risk neighborhoods and populations and all we as America have to show for it is a 6 ear recession and counting and a lot of people that now have repos and bad credit.

Nothing in Dodd Frank addresses any of the precipitating events.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The first half of that is, at least a cogent theory and possibly partially correct. The second part is nonsense.

A lot of conservative dogma on the Reagan recovery is historically inaccurate. Like for example it did not begin to recover because of tax cuts. Those were delayed for a full two years by Tip O'Neil. You would call that tactic obstructionism these days. I am of the opinion that the prospect of coming tax cuts made economic sense of business decisions that were a coin flip towards the good with or without the tax cuts. They clearly did no harm. It is speculation that they helped at all. I speculate that they did.

100% wrong on the talking point on evil banks and more evil Republican Deregulation.

Merrill Lynch was not a bank. They were never subject to the restrictions that I agree should never have been loosened allowing banks to get into securities. The crisis in derivatives was precipitated solely because of the underlying weaknesses of the bundled mortgages. A lot originated by not-Banks like Countrywide. I did a lot of sub-prime work for them at the time. As well as Meritage. Those lending guidlelines were written not by banks or mortgage brokers but straight from fannie and freddie. No bank or mortgage compan could then or now sta in business if they did not have the larger bookie of fnma and fmac to la off that paper and every single loan complied with fmna or fmac guidelines or it was not processed. This stuff was all automated and there was no cheating. There was no need to cheat on a liar loan. It is whatever the customer says it is. Low doc, no doc, 3-21- buy-downs... A lot of creative ways that Fannie dreamed up (including no down loans with what otherwise are illegal kickbacks to the buyers benefit)

All of that crashed because once everyone qualified for a loan including if you already had a house, it was the dutch tulip market and inflation that was not supported by the availability of dirt, cost of materials and labor.

So no. Banks had nothing to do with, ditto regulations.

The problem (still un-addressed) was that execs at fnma and fmac got huge bonuses for increasing the number of homes in at-risk neighborhoods and populations and all we as America have to show for it is a 6 ear recession and counting and a lot of people that now have repos and bad credit.

Nothing in Dodd Frank addresses any of the precipitating events.

Reagan's tax cuts nearly destroyed the coming recovery as evidenced by the second recession that followed shortly behind the cuts in taxes. The "Prospect of coming tax cuts" line is funny and the go-to position of conservatives when things start looking up economically when they have done nothing.

Now you were a mortgage broker working on sub-prime loans too? Good lord, you really HAVE done everything huh?

The simple fact is that once the conservatives started rolling back Glass-Steagall bit by bit it set the ball in motion toward the same sort of behavior that caused the crash in 1929 (which was WHY Glass-Steagall was passed in the first place). Fannie and Freddie had little to nothing to do with the flood of sub-prime loans as evidenced by the very small number of failed loans which they originated. Mortgage banks got into bed with investment banks thanks to the rolling back of protections put in place by Glass-Steagall and started handing out sub-primes like candy hoping that the real estate boom would continue unabated. After all, they stood to make quite a pretty penny selling then reselling foreclosed property that had gone up in value when the mortgagee couldn't keep up with the ARM they were left with after the 2-3 year teaser rate of the sub-prime. Failed mortgages that were bundled as investments and sold to investors all over the world.

Then the Sword of Damocles fell.

Yes, it had everything to do with banks, and deregulation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now you were a mortgage broker working on sub-prime loans too? Good lord, you really HAVE done everything huh? .

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3214/3148403764_5ace287b1d.jpg

The simple fact is that once the conservatives started rolling back Glass-Steagall bit by bit it set the ball in motion toward the same sort of behavior that caused the crash in 1929 (which was WHY Glass-Steagall was passed in the first place). Fannie and Freddie had little to nothing to do with the flood of sub-prime loans as evidenced by the very small number of failed loans which they originated. Mortgage banks got into bed with investment banks thanks to the rolling back of protections put in place by Glass-Steagall and started handing out sub-primes like candy hoping that the real estate boom would continue unabated. After all, they stood to make quite a pretty penny selling then reselling foreclosed property that had gone up in value when the mortgagee couldn't keep up with the ARM they were left with after the 2-3 year teaser rate of the sub-prime. Failed mortgages that were bundled as investments and sold to investors all over the world.

Then the Sword of Damocles fell.

Yes, it had everything to do with banks, and deregulation.

Sadly, the low-information right wing has internalized the false "but...but...Fannie and Freddie" premise as the primary cause of the Bush Recession.

They have to.

Otherwise they'd be forced to admit that too much deregulation was the root cause of the housing crash.

And we all know about how conservatives feel about accepting responsibility.

 

[Que]

Reagan's tax cuts nearly destroyed the coming recovery as evidenced by the second recession that followed shortly behind the cuts in taxes. The "Prospect of coming tax cuts" line is funny and the go-to position of conservatives when things start looking up economically when they have done nothing.

Now you were a mortgage broker working on sub-prime loans too? Good lord, you really HAVE done everything huh?

The simple fact is that once the conservatives started rolling back Glass-Steagall bit by bit it set the ball in motion toward the same sort of behavior that caused the crash in 1929 (which was WHY Glass-Steagall was passed in the first place). Fannie and Freddie had little to nothing to do with the flood of sub-prime loans as evidenced by the very small number of failed loans which they originated. Mortgage banks got into bed with investment banks thanks to the rolling back of protections put in place by Glass-Steagall and started handing out sub-primes like candy hoping that the real estate boom would continue unabated. After all, they stood to make quite a pretty penny selling then reselling foreclosed property that had gone up in value when the mortgagee couldn't keep up with the ARM they were left with after the 2-3 year teaser rate of the sub-prime. Failed mortgages that were bundled as investments and sold to investors all over the world.

Then the Sword of Damocles fell.

Yes, it had everything to do with banks, and deregulation.

No, I was an appraiser. I was highly recommended by Meritage because m appraisals would make it thorough the AI expert system because mine actually made economic sense. I went out of business two years before the so called top of the market because no one was interested in my reticence about some of the values.

You know nothing about foreclosures. It takes months and they are in horrible condition and banks are not in the property management or property sales business and have to farm all that out starting with a 6% loss for the commission alone another % or two for management before the sale. Plus everyone knows the bank doesn't want to hold that asset and everyone low-balls them. They lose on every foreclosure especially on a NO DOWN loan.

Not to mention the exceedingly low percentage of loans retained by any bank. Banks money on origination not holding notes. So they don't. Hardly ever. And since they are never going to see that loan not only are they not rubbing their hands with glee over the pretty penny you think a no down loan that takes a year to foreclose is going to make them, they also do not worry about having to buy the loan back as long as it meets (what?) that's right freddie and fannie guidelines.

You are awfully glib but you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Que]

Sadly, the low-information left wing has internalized the false "but...but..Glass-Stegal and Republican De-regulation" premise as the primary cause of the Carter/Clinton/Dood/Frank Recession.

They have to.

Otherwise they'd be forced to admit that the unrealistic aims of the CREA and subsequent loosening of lending guidelines was the root cause of the housing crash.

And we all know about how liberals feel about accepting responsibility.

FYP

Yeah COULDN'T be lending guidelines in the sub-prime market as written by and only by FMAC and FNMA that led to the default rate on sub-prime loans, could it?

 

[RobDownSouth]

FYP

Yeah COULDN'T be lending guidelines in the sub-prime market as written by and only by FMAC and FNMA that led to the default rate on sub-prime loans, could it?

You are correct.

Fannie and Freddie were at best bit players in the housing crash.

 

[Sean]

FYP

Yeah COULDN'T be lending guidelines in the sub-prime market as written by and only by FMAC and FNMA that led to the default rate on sub-prime loans, could it?

Sub prime mortgages were responsible for about 1% of the bad paper held by the banks. One per cent. The other 99% were bullshit derivatives that had fuck all to do with Fanny and Freddy and a lot to do with the greed and stupidity of bankers. But you absolve them of all blame like the good little brown nosed retard that you are.

 

[Que]

Sub prime mortgages were responsible for about 1% of the bad paper held by the banks. One per cent. The other 99% were bullshit derivatives that had fuck all to do with Fanny and Freddy and a lot to do with the greed and stupidity of bankers. But you absolve them of all blame like the good little brown nosed retard that you are.

Link?

 

[phrodeau]

Link?

You want a link to show you're a good little brown-nosed retard?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Link?

There's a good balanced write-up HERE.

It's important to note that while Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac were not bystanders in the Bush Housing Meltdown, they were not the prime instigators that you and your kind often make them out to be. They simply made a very bad situation worse.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pro-Obama bias?

You don't read so good huh?

Favorable is an adjective That describes approval or good conditions. Politician's approval ratings are often described as "favorable" or "unfavorable" With regards to the publics opinion of them. Having ones Presidential approval rating in the 40's after six years in office is no small accomplishment. Just ask G.W. Bush... Oh wait, he wouldn't know would he? I suppose you could ask Bill Clinton.

This is not New Math, but I was always taught that 100% - 43% positive rating = 57% negative rating. More that half the people questioned think Obama is doing poorly as POTUS.

At one time, W had an approval rating of about 90%.

ETA: Apparently this is the poll being cited. As you can see, Obama's approval rating is less than that of the average president at the same time. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

This is not New Math, but I was always taught that 100% - 43% positive rating = 57% negative rating. More that half the people questioned think Obama is doing poorly as POTUS.

At one time, W had an approval rating of about 90%.

ETA: Apparently this is the poll being cited. As you can see, Obama's approval rating is less than that of the average president at the same time. http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Who said anything about that?
You should leave the math to someone else.
Apples and apples.

At the same point in his Presidency G.W. fared much worse at 37% than President Obama at 43%. At his lowest G.W. managed a 25% approval rating, ONE point higher than Nixon at his lowest and 3 points lower than Carter. I'll lay odds that's a hell of a lot lower than President Obama's lowest rating will go.

Hell, President Obama's approval bottomed out at 40%, higher than G.W.'s average for his second term at 36.5%. That 25% really dragged his average through the mud. So far President Obama's approval rating (according to Gallup) hasn't' dropped below 40%.

See, THAT is math.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Pro-Obama bias?

You don't read so good huh?

Favorable is an adjective That describes approval or good conditions. Politician's approval ratings are often described as "favorable" or "unfavorable" With regards to the publics opinion of them. Having ones Presidential approval rating in the 40's after six years in office is no small accomplishment. Just ask G.W. Bush... Oh wait, he wouldn't know would he? I suppose you could ask Bill Clinton.

I'm so nervous! Do yuh s'pose Obamas approval rating will help Democrats in November?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Back to the subject of approval ratings, here are some historical ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Back to the subject of approval ratings, here are some historical ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating

What the fuck do you mean "get back to?"
I apologize if you couldn't keep up but my last post was ENTIRELY about approval ratings. Specifically how the current President is faring much better at this point in his Presidency that G.W. was in his.

By the way your citing G.W.'s 90% approval rating only means that G.W.'s fell a hell of a lot farther a hell of a lot faster.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Who said anything about that?
You should leave the math to someone else.
Apples and apples.

At the same point in his Presidency G.W. fared much worse at 37% than President Obama at 43%. At his lowest G.W. managed a 25% approval rating, ONE point higher than Nixon at his lowest and 3 points lower than Carter. I'll lay odds that's a hell of a lot lower than President Obama's lowest rating will go.

Hell, President Obama's approval bottomed out at 40%, higher than G.W.'s average for his second term at 36.5%. That 25% really dragged his average through the mud. So far President Obama's approval rating (according to Gallup) hasn't' dropped below 40%.

See, THAT is math.

All I am saying is that Obama's approval rating, at the time of the poll being cited, is lower than his disapproval, meaning a majority of people think he is doing poorly. I arrived at this conclusion by subtracting his positive approval rating from 100%. Now, can you - or anybody - tell me I have made some kind of math error?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

All I am saying is that Obama's approval rating, at the time of the poll being cited, is lower than his disapproval, meaning a majority of people think he is doing poorly. I arrived at this conclusion by subtracting his positive approval rating from 100%. Now, can you - or anybody - tell me I have made some kind of math error?

No shit captain obvious. This has nothing to do with the fact that his favorables are going back up.

I'm still waiting for you to show how the linked article is supposedly biased as you claimed.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What the fuck do you mean "get back to?"
I apologize if you couldn't keep up but my last post was ENTIRELY about approval ratings. Specifically how the current President is faring much better at this point in his Presidency that G.W. was in his.

By the way your citing G.W.'s 90% approval rating only means that G.W.'s fell a hell of a lot farther a hell of a lot faster.

If you want to continue comparing oranges and tangerines, I note that Obama's average approval ratings are higher than those of Ford or Carter but lower than everybody else's including the approval ratings of Nixon.

 

[phrodeau]

If you want to continue comparing oranges and tangerines, I note that Obama's average approval ratings are higher than those of Ford or Carter but lower than everybody else's including the approval ratings of Nixon.

Why single out Nixon? Once folks learned what a crook he was, he left office and didn't get any more polls.