So who's part of the 29%? (1 Viewer)

[MPar98]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19209733/

 

[SaintsBrazil]

I think the immigration thing is taking away his last little bit of support. At the moment, he isn't doing much that pleases either the democrats or the conservatives. (yes, I know that the parties are democrat and republican)

If another supreme court justice retired and he put another conservative on the court, he would go back up to 45% for a few weeks.

I am not in the 29%

 

[varanook]

Not I

I also have become more interested in Ron Paul these days and liek Tancredo's stance immigraton.

 

[gumbeau]

I would be one of the 29%

 

[BullDawg]

Two out of three branches, controlled by the Republicrats, have approval ratings below 30%.

Nah...there's no need for a serious third party movement.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

What's not to love? Bloated budgets, deficits, incompetence, little accountability....

 

[MPar98]

I especially detest the 600 million dollar (currently) U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

 

[BullDawg]

I especially detest the 600 million dollar (currently) U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

A drop in the bucket-o-waste.

 

[MPar98]

A drop in the bucket-o-waste.

See, but I believe any American would rather it be at least wasted here in the U.S.

 

[BullDawg]

See, but I believe any American would rather it be at least wasted here in the U.S.

But of course. However, it would still end up in Lower Pickyournoseastan or someplace else. Our politicians put Americans last, not first.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

But of course. However, it would still end up in Lower Pickyournoseastan or someplace else. Our politicians put Americans last, not first.

lobbyists are Americans too.

 

[DadsDream]

I'm in that 29%.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember double-digit inflation coupled with double-digit interest rates. If we ever go back to that again, you'll long for the good old days of Dubya.

 

[Sandman]

lobbyists are Americans too.

Not all of them.

 

[St. Widge]

I'm in that 29%.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember double-digit inflation coupled with double-digit interest rates. If we ever go back to that again, you'll long for the good old days of Dubya.

Honestly DD, despite what Clinton may have claimed, do you really think a President has any real control over an economy? I don't. Economics is largely cyclical. The most a President can do is to try to influence the Fed Reserve Chairman to drop the Prime. Other than that, it's a matter of making people feel good about their personal finances so that they will spend.

Moreover, when is the last time a U.S. Economy struggled during a time of war? I suspect the answer is never. War brings economic prosperity. It increases manufacturing, creates jobs and creates job opening since so many are overseas in the military. But, it's a really heavy price to pay for a boost in the economy and can't last in the long term. Those guys need to come home sometimes and we saw some of that effect when our soldiers came home from Vietnam. You know that far better than I ever could.

Also, I choose to place the bar for a President higher than Jimmy Carter. Bush may not be the failure Carter was, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, the separation of powers has been blurring, and the President has more power over the budget than he did prior to Teddy Roosevelt.

Technically you're right, that the President has little direct control over the economy, but he does set a lot of the agendas of Congress and helps direct funding priority. Shouldn't be the case, but it is...