Carter Redux?

[dales]

Americans more downbeat than at any time since Carter, poll says

Published January 23, 2013

FoxNews.com




WASHINGTON – As President Obama begins his second term, he is facing an increasingly pessimistic public who believes that America's best days are behind them.

According to a recently released Gallup poll, 39 percent of Americans rated the current climate of the country as positive. That's about the same as it was in 2010 -- and has been the lowest recorded by Gallup since President Jimmy Carter's term in 1979.

Gallup asked Americans to rate their feelings about the country today, five years from now and five years ago. Based on a scale of 0 to 10, the 39 percent of Americans gave a 6-to-10 rating when asked to evaluate the nation's current climate.

Taken together with the 2010 reading, that's just above where the country was at the end of the Carter term -- when inflation was high and the economy was reeling. At that time, just 34 percent had a positive outlook.

Optimism steadily rose after 1979, peaking in about 2001 at 73 percent -- since the 9/11 terror attacks, national optimism has steadily declined.

Now, with unemployment slightly below 8 percent and economic growth continuing at a meager pace, a similar malaise may be setting in. Even the outlook on the future is down. Forty-eight percent were upbeat about where the country will be in five years, also the lowest since 1979.

The survey also found that most Americans' attitudes toward the status of the country are connected to their political views. Republicans believe that when there is a GOP president in power, things are better. The same rings true of Democrats and their mood based on the party in power.

When it comes to the future, the polling agency found a 60 percentage-point partisan difference in optimism. Only 15 percent of Republicans felt positive about the future, compared to 75 percent of Democrats.

The Gallup poll results are based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 7-10, 2012, with 1,011 adults. There is a 4 percentage point margin of error.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... z2IrV3DuZS

[rubato]

Faux news, faux facts.

Their headline contradicts their own article:

"... When it comes to the future, the polling agency found a 60 percentage-point partisan difference in optimism. Only 15 percent of Republicans felt positive about the future, compared to 75 percent of Democrats. ..."

Repuglicans are downbeat because all of their ideologies are being crushed by reality at once. Liberals are quite optimistic now that we have begun digging out of the Repuglican mess.

Republiworld ..................................... Reality
Hate and fear immigrants! .................... "His name is Jaime and he votes!" Oops.
Global Warming is a Lie ........................ "Superstorm Sandy" highest temperatures on record, record drought Oops!
Hate and fear Gays, God says so!...... ....... A large majority of younger voters think you're wrong. Oops!
The bottom 47% in income are parasites! .... The bottom 47% work hard for very little and resent the lie. Oops!
ObamaCare is Wrong ............................ Most of the country will be much better off. "RomneyCare" is a big hit in Mass.. oops!
We need to borrow more to give to the rich ... How dumb are they? oops!

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

So, you think things are going well in this country?
I don't, and after 4 years of the new regime, I don't care who/what/where is the cause.
Things are not getting better. Sure the DOW is up, but jobs are not. The only thing up is the amount of people not claiming unempoyment benefits because they have run out of their 99 weeks of beni's. Only a growing economy can help that situation.
Placing blame only makes the blamer feel good, it does nothing to help the situation.

[dgs49]

How about this? Americans are "downbeat" because "we" just re-elected a failed President, who promises to do even more of the same things that made things worse during his first term.

Not surprising at all.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I am not an economy major (not even a minor) so I have no idea if fed spending more will boost or bust the economy. I did hear that the State Department (during HRC's "lack of" testimony on Bengazi) 70,000 employees. !?!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF!?!?!? Now I have no idea what the state department entails, but for one department to have 70,000 employees!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!!?!? Seems some trimming is in order. But then those layed off will collect beni's and be recorded for a year or two as the unemployed which will not play well with the rhetoric.

I do know this needs to be fixed and that the only way to fix it is to employ more in the private sector as anyone working for the gov only sucks away the taxpayers ( both private AND public employees) money.

[Econoline]

For comparison, the Department of Defense has around 3,200,000 employees (approx. 650,000 of them civilians), the Department of Veterans Affairs has around 278,000 employees, and the Department of Homeland Security has around 210,000 employees.

[dales]

[oldr_n_wsr]

For comparison, the Department of Defense has around 3,200,000 employees (approx. 650,000 of them civilians), the Department of Veterans Affairs has around 278,000 employees, and the Department of Homeland Security has around 210,000 employees.

I can understand the DoD as long as the regular soldiers are included in that number. And the VA needs more than that to tend to the 3_million soldiers. But Homeland Security (aka FEMA non existant around here)????
Guess what they did recently, erected tent city on Staten Island to house people still displaced from their homes (or from homes with no heat). F-in TENTS!?!?!? are they kidding me? Get a bunch of trailer homes and get them the F-in here. The electricity is on, plop them down on or near the peoples property and let them live a somewhat normal life in the area they live in. TENTS?!?!!? where are we in Korea playing M*A*S*H? It's 10 degrees here. Tents?!?!?!?!?!?

[Econoline]

Yeah, I heard something about that on the news on NPR this morning...

Gee, obviously what DHS and FEMA need is MORE EMPLOYEES!

[Rick]

They certainly need smarter people...

[rubato]

Ahhh Uncle Ronnie! Everybody loves the Uncle who spends like a sailor on shore leave with borrowed money!

He helped drive federal employment to an all-time high during peace time!



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I am not an economy major (not even a minor) so I have no idea if fed spending more will boost or bust the economy. I did hear that the State Department (during HRC's "lack of" testimony on Bengazi) 70,000 employees. !?!?!?!?!?!?!? WTF!?!?!? Now I have no idea what the state department entails, but for one department to have 70,000 employees!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!!?!?

I have to completely disagree with your attitude about this oldr....

I'm sure there's a certain amount of fat in the State Department budget, just as there is in the budget of any department....

But our total expense on the State Department amounts to less than 1% of annual federal spending...

We are a global power, with embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic missions in 177 countries around the globe....

Seems pretty small to me...

I don't mean to pick on you, but I find this, "Let's cut the State Department!" , "Let's cut defense spending by 50%, no that's not enough, let's cut it by two thirds!" , "Let's close all US foreign military bases!" etc, neo-isolationist rhetoric that we've seen on this board recently, (from both The Left and The Right) to be all part of a well intended but misguided piece...

I understand the motivation, especially in such difficult economic times, but we tried the, "let's just take care of ourselves and the rest of the world can go fuck itself!" approach back in the 20's and 30's....

It ended badly....

[Rick]

Well there is one way to create more jobs and quick.

Don't tighten gun laws relax them even more.

That will require more guards at schools which will have the added benefit of reducing drug use on school campus which will make our kids in turn smarter.

[Gob]

and increase the throughput at funeral directors and crematorium....

[Rick]

Not if they are an actual deterrent...

[oldr_n_wsr]

I don't mean to pick on you, but I find this, "Let's cut the State Department!" , "Let's cut defense spending by 50%, no that's not enough, let's cut it by two thirds!" , "Let's close all US foreign military bases!" etc, neo-isolationist rhetoric that we've seen on this board recently, (from both The Left and The Right) to be all part of a well intended but misguided piece...

LordJim pick on me all you want, I have a tuff skin (and even tuffer with this low teens temerature ). All I was saying is that I find it amazing that one department has 70,000 employees. I am probably naive in the matters of how big government is and when I hear tens of thousands in a signle department, I tend to pull back in awe. The military I can see as there are millions of soldiers.
And I don't think I called for 50% or 66% cuts in military spending although I do think all departments should be cut. The gov is too big, and is unsustainable at current spending levels. Soc Sec and medicare are things we have been paying into since we started working and basically should be off limits as they are "promises". But all "regular" departments, EPA, Dept of Educ, etc. need to be pared down.

[Econoline]

If the DoD has ~650,000 civilian employees--besides the military personnel--I don't think it's inappropriate for State (the department responsible for resolving international affairs by diplomacy rather than war) to have, what, just a little over one-tenth of that number? In fact, I find it astounding that our priorities are that far skewed toward war rather than diplomacy. (BTW, there was no "Defense" Department in the United States until 1949; until 1947 there were only the more appropriately named War Dept. and Navy Dept.)

[Econoline]

Interesting chart (from here) showing that the number of federal workers per capita is actually at its lowest point in many many years:

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)
...................Executive Branch......Total U.S. ........Executive Branch employees
......................civilians.............population.............per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy)...2.48 million..........186.5 million.................13.3
1964 (Johnson)...2.47 million..........191.8 million.................12.9
1970 (Nixon)......2.94 million*.........205 million...................14.4
1975 (Ford).......2.84 million...........215.9 million................13.2
1978 (Carter).....2.87 million..........222.5 million................12.9
1982 (Reagan)....2.77 million..........232.1 million................11.9
1990 (Bush).......3.06 million*.........249.6 million................12.3
1994 (Clinton).....2.9 million...........263.1 million................11.1
2002 (Bush)........2.63 million..........287.8 million................9.1
2010 (Obama).....2.65 million†.........310.3 million†..............8.4†............
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget.
* = Figure includes temporary Census Bureau workers.
† = Estimates by OMB and U.S. Census Bureau.

[Andrew D]

I find this ... neo-isolationist rhetoric that we've seen on this board recently, (from both The Left and The Right) to be all part of a well intended but misguided piece...

I understand the motivation, especially in such difficult economic times, but we tried the, "let's just take care of ourselves and the rest of the world can go fuck itself!" approach back in the 20's and 30's....

It ended badly....

A right-wing shibboleth.

If you have no answer, just scream "Isolationism!"

No thinking person advocates isolationism.

Thinking people advocate non-interventionism.

The notion that the problems of the 20s and 30s were the result of "isolationism" is just silly. When someone can explain how "isolationism" caused the catastrophic income inequality of the 20s or the Dust Bowl of the 30s, that person will deserve being taken seriously.

[Lord Jim]

When someone can explain how "isolationism" caused the catastrophic income inequality of the 20s or the Dust Bowl of the 30s, that person will deserve being taken seriously.

Huh?

What a strawman....

When I say "ended badly" I'm not referring to meteorological events....

I'm referring to the fact that by allowing our defense capabilities to atrophy, and disengaging internationally, we had very little detterent capability to deter Hitler or Tojo from their foreign conquests, and ultimately led the Japanese to believe they could launch an attack against us with impunity....(Isolationism may not have had a relationship to the Dust Bowl, but it certainly had a direct one to Pearl Harbor)

A right-wing shibboleth.

I don't know if I'd be so down on "the right-wingers" about this if I were you...

You may not have noticed, but a lot of them have taken to embracing the same radical fringe neo-isolationism that you apparently find so appealing...

On the other hand, wildly reckless proposals for 50% plus reductions in defense spending, and a complete US military withdrawal from the globe are simply not a fit starting point for any sort of discussion amongst serious minded people, which is why you may noticed that for the most part, I haven't bothered to comment when those silly non-starter assertions are made.