Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

I was right about taking the debt deal

I was right about taking the debt deal

I was right when I said Republicans should take the debt deal, as bad as it was, because otherwise any negative consequences would provide Obama an excuse for his own failures.

And I was right.

Polling in the three weeks since the deal was announced has shown Obama in a perilous slide.  Here’s Rasmussen, showing the largest gap between strongly support/strongly disapprove ever (h/t HotAir):

Here’s Gallup, showing how approval since the killing of Osama bin Laden has turned upside down, and how disapproval has accelerated in the past month:

This decline is not written in stone, and surely Team Obama (Axelplouffe and MSM) will keep trying to blame everyone else.  But taking the deal kept the nation focused on the shortcomings of Obama’s policies by not precipitating a crisis which only would have served as a diversion.

Oddly enough, freeing Obama up run off to fundraisers and lavish vacations in August while the rest of the nation suffered has solidified the (correct) perception of an administration out of touch and out of control.

And we will continue having this conversation for the next several months, if not the next year.  Which is a good thing, because there is only one solution to the nation’s fiscal problems, and it comes in November 2012.  Keep your eyes on the goal.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


My sense of design aesthetics says the Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index graphic needs a little something.

To bring a sense of harmonious balance, the little picture of a smiling President Obama on the graphic’s left side needs similar pictorial weighting on the right side … this would do the trick quite nicely.

left coast rebel | August 23, 2011 at 3:17 pm

I disagree just a bit (and respectfully understand your take here). I think that Obama’s sliding poll numbers represent the public’s unease re: the general slide in economic conditions. Of course, $4+ trillion “cuts” would have avoided the S&P downgrade and perhaps created better economic conditions than we have right now but I have a hunch that the public blames both the GOP and Obama for the downgrade and deteriorating conditions.

“Axelplouffe.” That’s a good one. We should have a contest to create a definition for “Axelplouffe.”

It was a tactical victory only if they have a winning strategy. Unfortunately, at the rate which we are accumulating debt, and the corresponding virtual economy it has manufactured, it will be necessary to have real economic growth in excess of 10% annually and reduce government expenditures, if we hope to avoid a severe correction. There is no indication that is possible. Although, removing and preventing the entry of illegal aliens would immediately provide an opportunity to American men, women, and children, who are displaced by their presence. We could also reduce legal immigration quotas, until the number of Americans unemployed and receiving taxpayer subsidies is returned to a reasonable level. Maybe that would be the best possible immediate stimulus program we could hope to pass.

    I apologize for lack of tact, but that has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. So the answer to our economic woes is to greatly increase the cost of doing business? I’m as annoyed about cheating (illegal immigration) as the next guy, but while having better and more enforceable rules may help reduce crime, increase stability, and increase the overall sense of fairness, the mass removal and prevention of immigrants will crush our economy. It will increase the cost of labor and thereby prices for everyone. The few Americans that may want some of those jobs will take them for a generally higher prices and thus reduce the overall number of jobs and productivity of the country.

    Why should hardworking people be prevented from increasing the quality of life of Americans simply because they were born on the wrong plot of land? Immigration laws are broken and unenforceable in their current state. I’m not for blanket “amnesty” unless we can first fix the system and allow the free flowing of speedy, legal, documented, stable, cheap labor across our borders. But the pipe dream that our current system can be enforced by a suitable amount of conviction and barrier-building has to be stopped: it’s not going to happen, and even if it could, it would end up being far more unfair than the status quo.

      First, the immigration laws can be enforced. We have existing military, national guard, and other security forces, which should be stationed to serve and protect. We can easily limit the availability of social programs, including: medical services, education, housing and food subsidies, etc., to citizens and legal residents. This has been a big incentive for them to leave their home nations. That there is no will to do so is a subjective matter.

      Second, the argument for supporting depressed labor is counter to developing a sustainable society. The people who are unemployed, who receive taxpayer subsidies, must choose jobs as they become available and as they are qualified, including eligible teenagers and young adults. This will require a fundamental change in the welfare system as it is currently conceived. As an incentive, it will contribute to mitigating causal factors to progressive corruption of individuals and society.

      The economic costs already exist, but they are obfuscated and deferred through debt vehicles (e.g., federal public debt) and cost shifting. That we do not readily and directly perceive the hidden expenses is not an argument to ignore them.

      Finally, with a tried-and-true tactic of appeal to emotion, I would suggest that it is unconscionable to permit any immigration, let alone unmeasured immigration, which displaces American men, women, and children; when there is nearly 10% unemployed, an additional 10% long-term unemployed, and nearly 50% of our population who reap benefits from funds derived through involuntary exploitation.

      We could have a guest worker program; but, again, it is unconscionable to pursue that policy until reasonable correction of excessive unemployment and underemployment, and unaccountable redistribution through involuntary exploitation, has been effected.

      We must also adjust our trade policies to trade with other nations that support similar policies and regulations. That would, in large part, exclude places like China. We should, however, continue to cultivate a relationship with our immediate neighbors, and encourage them to do the same with their neighbors. In this manner, we will manage to elevate those nations (or districts) through economic exchange (or voluntary exploitation), which will be mutually beneficial to all involved.

      That said, the phenomenon of mass migration (around 1 million annually, over 10 million in total and likely much higher) from a nation (i.e., administrative district), would suggest that there is a pervasive and progressive problem in those areas. Instead of treating symptoms, we should consider the underlying causes which would justify people to leave their homes and migrate in such large numbers to a foreign nation. In the same context, there exist nations (or administrative districts) for a simple reason, which is at minimum to develop the natural and human resources within its jurisdiction. There is no value in ignoring the causes, only to shift the problem from one location to another.

[…] It’s almost as if Barack Obama was actually at work at the White House and the roof caved in o… The golden calf can at least say he has something in common with tween star Katy Perry (no relation to that other Perry) who had the roof fall in on her too. Tween star Katy Perry however had the roof fall in on her because she was a good sport and agreed with a fan that “pray for Israel” was a good idea. […]

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 23, 2011 at 7:30 pm

I wouldn’t spike the football yet. The media and Democrats will get another chance in a couple of months to bash the Republicans and try to salvage Obama’s approval ratings when the debt ceiling Super Committee most likely fails.

It took MSM 8 years to drive Bush rating to -30, Obama accomplished -26 in 3. Just think what it would have been with a Truly Neutral “Journalism” Profession!

Was it “taking the debt deal” or the intense fight and argument (with the clear possibility that Republicans wouldn’t go along with White House spending at current rates) that focused public attention on the fact that the economy is so bad and the debt so big because of the President’s policies?

That the Republicans basically went along shows political competence, but not policy competence.