Pollster.com

Damn Rassmus...oh wait...it's not Rasmussen. LOL

Wow - so few polls are even showing it tied anymore. Go ahead libs, what excuses are you going to make for this one? Internet poll? Bad partisan make-up?

When you make excuses for your guys performance in 8/10 polls, it starts to look like you're....well, making excuses.

See how the Ras effect works, eventually all other pollsters publish similar results. Ras must have a crystal ball.

this and every poll out there is biased. All have huge republican house advantages. Not one poll out there conveys just how much people love Obama's policies. When the economy is in the tank and unemployement is high, people love their Presidents to appear on Jerry Springer, oh I mean "The View."

Why can't these pollsters understand the adoration America has for Obama? For God's sake the man went on "The View." He is so in touch with soccer moms and African Americans. He kindly referred to African Americans as "mongrels." Wow, my wife, African American, sure appreciates that. Why is she not reflected in this and other polls? Why I ask you? Wakeup pollsters, American loves their Obama and they gotsta have more.

I'm really struggling with being humble.

LOL. Then you folks must accept the generic numbers as well.

"See how the Ras effect works, eventually all other pollsters publish similar results. Ras must have a crystal ball."

Let's see, RaSS has Republicans up by 10, this poll has them down by 3. If he has a crystal ball, it must been in a very painful place.

Looks like Obama's numbers are stabilizing at a slightly better level than Reagan's in his first mid-term. I don't know that the Dem's leading the generic ballot in this survey is credible.

Since I don't have a law degree, I am not sure I get what they're trying to say:

"Voter registration, turnout, religion, news interest, minor
party identification, and non-placement on an ideology
scale, were imputed from the 2008 Current Population
Survey Registration and Voting Supplement and the Pew
Religion in American Life Survey."

It goes on to say that it is weighted. If they're saying that they weight it by 2008 party ID, this thing is pretty useless, considering Dem party ID shrank by about 10-12 points between 2008 and 2010.

Paleo
I was focusing on BoBo's rapid decent towards the 30's.

Given the Rangel effect I would say the generic will soon be rep +6 soon.

sorry to many soons

Internet poll regardless of the numbers it is statistacal trash. Obama's number are actually similar to Regan's athe same point inhis preidency. Regan while talking conservative used massive government spending to pump up the economy and the debt.
The bottom line is that short of major warfare as the economy goes so goees a prsidents popularity.

"I was focusing on BoBo's rapid decent towards the 30's."

Nice picking and choosing. And your hero, Rass, has him at 47% today.

"Given the Rangel effect"

The "Rangel effect." LOL. Doesn't that come from having too many tea bags stapled to your head?

I guess that reps are tied with dems in RV, which probably means they are up at least 8% with LVs given the mood of their constituencies.

Of course I accept the generic numbers. Gallup says that there is always an 8 point republican shortfall between polls with all voters and likely voters. That puts republicans 4 points ahead on the generic.

And since the enthusiasm gap is bigger than ever recorded, and congressional approval is lower than ever recorded, that 8 point traditional gap is probably too low.

How many seats would republicans gain if they keep this 4 point lead and end up with 52% of the vote? Someone has a formula somewhere.

The numbers are hard to find, but the Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown looks Ok. The ethnic breakdown though is as scewed as the Fox poll with Hispanics undercounted by 50%. But how can a poll show that Obama has this negative approval rating and the generic ballot favor democrats especially when you see the Congressional approval numbers?

What we need are more polls! LOL

OOOOOOHH Paleo has a temper, he's using the ugly teabag word, even when it makes no sense, poor baby

"Rass, has him at 47% today." So now Paleo likes Ras.

This is a good day.

"So now Paleo likes Ras."

No, just pointing out that you're "crystal ball" is not supporting what you're saying.

Crystal ball reference means other pollsters always seem to catch up with Ras a few weeks later. Its like he has a crystal ball. Get it? This poll is case and point.

@bawlexus91:

What this liberal says is so what!

If this poll is accurate, all it means is that right now the debate is being shaped by moronic uninformed people like youself who voted for the people who got us into this mess in the first place.
Of course, you are quick to blame President Obama since you NEVER take resposibility for the mess and deficits that you caused.
You offer no solutions to anything other than get the gummit off our backs.
You don't seem to object to the rich and big business being on your back, however.

@bawlexus91:

What this liberal says is so what!

If this poll is accurate, all it means is that right now the debate is being shaped by moronic uninformed people like youself who voted for the people who got us into this mess in the first place.
Of course, you are quick to blame President Obama since you NEVER take resposibility for the mess and deficits that you caused.
You offer no solutions to anything other than get the gummit off our backs.
You don't seem to object to the rich and big business being on your back, however.

If this poll is accurate, all it means is that right now the debate is being shaped by moronic uninformed people like youself who voted for the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

Alan, back-to-back days of really intelligent and cogent arguments that show the dazzling ability to be tolerant and open-minded to ideas other than your own. Kudos...

Alan - the economy was great until the democrats took over the house and senate in 2007 so the only moronic uninformed people are those who vote for the democrats who caused this mess.

Field Marshall:

I am tolerant of many ideas that are not my own. What I am not tolerant about is stupidity and ignorance. I wear that as a badge of honor.

The right can never say what they want to do other than to say no or to say tax cuts for the rich.

Those are not ideas, they are right wing talking points, which never solved any problem the country has.

Since that is the only level of debate the right is capable of, I am delighted to be intolerant of it!

What I am not tolerant about is stupidity and ignorance.

Aren't we all. Of course, what people consider stupid and ignorant can vary significantly as demonstrated here today.

they are right wing talking points

What do you think "tax cuts for the rich" is?

I don't think this poll goes out of their way to poll Democratic leaners if Obama's approval is as bad as it seems. Even at that Registered voters have a 3 point lead. Maybe this poll isn't the most accurate but Fox's poll this week is the only one I have seen which actually lists their polling data that has more Republicans than Democrats polled.

TeaPartyRules: You can tell your friends at your next KKK meeting that the tea party is going to be the reason the Republican party go up in flames,the tea party is the main reason people are pulling back from the Republican party.Mitch Daniels and Mitt Roomney is behind close doors begging members of the Republican party to stop bashing Hispanics.What Lindsey Graham said on Fox News caught them all by surprise,so now the Presidential wanna bees are terrified of the damage Graham has caused.

Idiots armed with statistics are dangerous. Case & point this thread.

Mitt Romney is nearly done for as a electable Candidate, after saying we should have let Detroit go bankrupt. I think Obama has gotten a rotten deal on the economy, and I believe that the stimulus and the money that was lended to Gm and chrysler was a necessity. If you had ever allowed the Tea partiers to be in charge, our nation would end up being a post-industrial society, and probably environmental policies would be so atrocious, that Europe would declare war on us, for allowing the deserts to dry up.

FLAP

Too late, the deserts are already pretty dry.

Another strange poll. BO's numbers are generally in agreement with the results others are getting. While I accept that they got what they got for the generic ballot, it do look a mite strange.

I believe there will be a small Rangel effect. Scandals never help, especially when they get to the point that Congress feels like it needs to take action.

Thing to remember is that these are comparable to Reagan's 1982 poll numbers at the same place in his presidency, reading a whole lot into a 44% approval rating in July of a second year of a term is silly.

Melvin thanks for reminding me about the KKK meeting. I plan on sharing all of your negro dialect threads with the boys, I'm sure they'll get lots of laughs.

I can't figure out what YouGov weights by in order to produce both a) low Obama approvals, and b) high Dem generic vote tallies. This seems to be the only poll that consistently has this split. I bet their weights allow for a higher concentration of far-left liberals who, when pressed to give an answer, are not happy with Obama's performance but who are never going to vote Republican in an election. Though chances are this demographic will not come out in droves in November. A likely voter screen would perhaps fix this.

It's all a guess and I expect the liberal readers will rip this theory apart once they read it. But I think it's accurate.

TeaPartyRules: Oh so now a negro''just so you know am White,but i do have some black blood in me Mr KKK.

@bawlexus91:

Wow - so few polls are even showing it tied anymore. Go ahead libs, what excuses are you going to make for this one? Internet poll? Bad partisan make-up?
-------------------------------------------
If you will check the poll, you will see that the Democrats are ahead in the Congressional poll. This coincides with the Gallup Generic as well. Do you even have a clue?

Georgia Joe:

Looks like Obama's numbers are stabilizing at a slightly better level than Reagan's in his first mid-term. I don't know that the Dem's leading the generic ballot in this survey is credible.
---------------------------------------------
So let's get this straight. Polls that you like are great. Polls that you don't like are not credible. What is not credible is thinking that you have a functioning brain. LMFAO at teabagger morons.

Chantal, good theory. The only one I've seen so far that would explain the divergence between BO approval and generic in this poll.

"I bet their weights allow for a higher concentration of far-left liberals who, when pressed to give an answer, are not happy with Obama's performance but who are never going to vote Republican in an election."

Well, liberals give Obama approval of 84.9%-13.5% compared to dems overall give 75%-19.4%. For the Ballot liberals give dems 90% to reps 3.8% while democrats overall would vote dems 88% - 7.7% to reps. The (adult) sample has 22% self-identified liberal in it.

It a nice theory but I can't see too much evidence for it there. Even if there was, it can't be more than about 1-2 percent,(there just isn't that many liberal who disapprove of Obama compared to the whole sample). The only really strange thing I see about the poll is that Obama approval rating is (slightly) negative in the North-East but I would imagine that is just sampling error.

Maybe nobody else has done this, but have any of you tweaked the graphs at Pollster.com to remove Rasmussen? Without his polling, the Democrats do better on a scale of 2-3pts and Obama does better by 2-3 points. I've also removed Zogby, SurveyUSA, PPP - none of them have this effect. Whether it is Rasmussen's volume + his likely voter model or his bias + likely voter model or a little of everything, this is HUGE. The results of these polls, like everything, have to be taken in context of the Rasmussen effect. He drives the narrative here, whether for good or bad.

Nick:
It is useful to compare president's ratings. It teaches us, as life often does, that one can come back from setbacks and failures, not to mention bad luck or timing.

However, it is also a mistake to assume that things will also happen the same way, again. Obama may refuse to pivot to the right, as Clinton did. Obama has shown that he blows in the wind from the far left as often as he bows in fear of giving Republicans issues.

Republicans may refuse to bail Obama out, especially after his many ugly statements to and about them. It doesn't help that, to Republicans, Pelosi and Reid are fingernails screeching on a blackboard.

Instead, Obama may be like Carter, spiraling down and losing respect every year. For Carter, it wasn't so much that his polls were bad as the economy stayed bad and his fellows in the elite came to disrespect them.

He started out with a strong lead against Reagan, but all Reagan had to do was dispell the notion that he was unacceptable for Carter to tumble down to defeat. Obama could likewise be standing on a fulcrum, with his opponent needing only to show that he or she had good sense. Jindal, Daniels, and many others could do that effortlessly. Just because some would have a difficult time (Palin) is not likely to preserve Obama unless he can turn his record around.

In my view, Obama's continual celebrity binges (e.g., the View) are harming Obama's standing with serious people in the political elite. If he is successful, such behavior only causes muttering. If he has a big fail or a continual lack of success in what counts (and it is NOT passing laws), those kinds of issues expand in importance. Basically, they make him a farcical figure rather than a brave champion of the leftist view of the right and good.

You're absolutely correct, Kevin. Ras' LV model has a 2-3 point effect on overall graphs. Since most other data are from adult or RV samples. On the other hand, Ras approval and generic has not changed much in many months, while the overall graphs have moved away from BOBO in approval, and towards GOP in generic. So, at least the recent negative movement for Dems is not attributable to Ras.

On yet the third hand, many pollster continue to heavily overweight Dem respondents in their samples, basing them on old 2008 and 2006 exit polls and Census data. I also played with graphs here, and saw how how much taking some of the worst offenders out influences outcomes. In reality, Dem party ID declined by 10-12 points since then, the same amount as indies increased, while Repubs stayed at about the same level.

Too many citizens in prison:
There is an excellent article (originally from Cato) discussing the incredible number of people we have in prisons.

I maintain that this is something conservatives and liberals should be able to agree on. Liberals can decide their own issues, so I am speaking here to my fellow conservatives.

We care about government abuse and its affects on our freedoms. Therefore, putting people in prison for stupid reasons and keeping them there longer than necessary are CONSERVATIVE (i.e., liberal, in the original definition as focused on liberty) issues.

It is unbelievable the things that people go to prison for now. The author gives an example of a man who accidentally and unknowingly imported a few orchids for his hobby orchid business that turned out to be (maybe) endangered species. He went to jail for 7 years after using all of his assets paying lawyers to defend him.

The harsh federal sentencing rules are a product of the reaction against the crime waves and social disturbances of the 70's. Conservatives were eager to put real criminals in jail and not let them out, but they wrote things so that even common people were swept up in it. Plus, 7-20 years for selling weed to your friends is insane (it really does happen), especially when so many otherwise law-abiding citizens have used it.

In the decades sense, liberals got into the act. Their contribution was to criminalize an incredible array of things. Besides things like the orchid case, they (and McCain) criminalized campaign contributions. They also started the "honest services" criminalization of business practices the Supreme Court recently ruled unconstitutionally vague. That theory has been used to criminalize honest and/or stupid mistakes made by business men, government bureaucrats supporting the wrong party, etc.

Note how frequently conservative politicians have been indicted by liberal prosecutors. Examples include Limbaugh and Delay, with strong attempts to include the CIA interrogators, Bush, Rove, etc. They did not go to court only because Obama feared a political backlash. We have also seen Patrick in Chicago indict Libby for ... what? Sort of kinda of lying to an investigator about a crime someone else unknown to him actually committed. These gotcha perjury traps and prosectutions were pioneered by Joseph McCarthy but have been taken up with gusto by dems.

Paleo:
"Let's see, RaSS has Republicans up by 10, this poll has them down by 3. If he has a crystal ball, it must been in a very painful place."

Good one!

Still, I think Rasmussen is not far wrong.
We will see about the crystal ball when others switch to LV. I think Rass ultimately will lead because Gallup and most others still use RV and adults. Given the large prediction bias known to be associated with the latter two, I think they are wrong to wait on the LV.

I wish all pollsters would list: adult, RV, and LV. I suspect that they usually do not list the RV and LV together to protect propietary recipes.

prisons:
Whoops! Should have said it is reprinted in the Economist and linked to by Hot Air.

I also meant to make somewhat fewer typos.

Not directly related to your post, Seg, but speaking of citizens in prisons:

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE66T0QF.htm

I appreciate Sarkozy's pragmatism more and more. Doing a great job of dismantling leftist political correctness.

Other issues:
Heck, while I am at it, I will list other issues I wish conservatives would steal from libertarians:
(1) ending drug prohibition
(2) pulling back from our vastly over-extended military committments around the world. I am not necessarily referring to AfPak and Iraq, but we should avoid a repeat of either one.

On drugs, with 12M illegals from south of the border, we will find that the narco state of Mexico is our future. It will be the Mafia of Mafias. We could kill it here and there by legalizing drugs.

It would also vastly reduce the incarceration rates, especially for blacks. Jailing so many young black males is creating much of the dysfunction in the black underclass. Sure, some of them might have been criminals, anyway, but most of them probably would not have been.

If the Europeans, S. Koreans, and Japanese want our military to protect them, they should share a major portion of the cost. One of the casualties of our exploding deficits will be imploding military strength. We should start paring down our 200+ military bases left over from the 40's and 50's NOW.

StatyPolly and Paleo:
You both seem like thoughtful guys.

I would really like to hear your views on these subjects. I know it is not polling.

Paleo: please don't get distracted at any political jabs you see in it.

John, you bring up some good points that I had overlooked. Though while I don't blame YouGov for not weighting by geography (I assume they do not), it would not surprise me if online surveys do privilege Northeastern respondents. Typically weighting by age, sex, gender can eliminate these biases, but there are two issues here. First, do Northeastern liberals answer these two questions differently than non-Northeastern liberals? Considering that the term 'liberal' is loaded in circles many liberals may not admit to being a liberal on a survey so I don't know how helpful the crosstabs are. Second, in an election where the bulk of the 'hotly contested' races are not in the Northeast, does a generic ballot question that privileges Northeastern respondents have a larger change of being inaccurate?

If polls are drifting towards Ras, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is right.

It could mean that he and the other conservative media outlets have been successful in driving the narrative home to the voter.

Look at the economy even as the economy adds jobs, even as corporate profits appear to be growing, the media predicted that we were headed for a double dip recession. The media predicted that the middle class is dying. As a result, personal debt is decreasing for the first time in decades as people horde cash. Consumer confidence is low at a time when corporate profits are high (meaning that companies have cut as much as they can cut and for the vast majority of workers that means job stability).

The automotive industry is making a strong comeback and there hasn't been a word about it in the media.

It's all about narrative.

The bright side for Democrats is that most of the Republicans/Tea Party activists running for office are bat -&%^$% crazy and have little chance of winning in a lukewarm economy.

Chantal:
Excellent points. My feeling is that pollsters should simply do truly random, much larger sampling of RVs. With much larger samples, you can worry less about how representative your samples are and focus on the likelihood of voting by those within the sample, itself.

Other corrections could be made for likelihood of answering the phone, etc. Of course, that would be so problematic that I would show results with and without it.

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:
You must be correct since conservatives made exactly the same narrative arguments when McCain was going down.

The other possibility is that the public themselves noticed that the economy was sinking in 2008 and that their lying eyes make them disagree with you now.

Besides, I think you are quite wrong about what is happening with the economy right now. Why do you think Bernanke is talking down the economy, as are the IMF and many, many other neutral observers?

Why are dems more and more desperately talking about additional stimulus among themselves, if not in front of the public, who despises the previous stimulus?

The last quarter showed about 2.2% growth, according to Treasury. This is after 5% and 3.7% the preceding quarters. That is NOT a good trend. After a major recession, you generally eventually see a very robust recovery.

Note that at least 3% is required to create enough new jobs just to maintain the current level of unemployment. Yes, there can be initial weak quarters, but to go from modestly strong (5%) to truly sucks (2.2%) is a bad, bad sign, as I understand things, and the GDP is just one among many poor indicators.

Of course, the public focuses on unemployment, which is said to be a lagging indicator. Actually, the lag is lagging at this point. True unemployment (without dropping discouraged, for example) is shown by the lack of growth in total employment. Nearly zero real job growth coupled with increase in population is a bad combination. The public is right to call it stagnating at an unacceptable level.

Most economists I read (Rabini, Economist, Forbes, Financial Times, etc.) see poor growth through 2011 now with minimal reductions in unemployment. We may avoid the dreaded double-dip, but anemic growth looks all too likely.

Personally, I would prefer a strong recovery.

@seg:

"Other issues:
Heck, while I am at it, I will list other issues I wish conservatives would steal from libertarians:
(1) ending drug prohibition
(2) pulling back from our vastly over-extended military committments around the world. I am not necessarily referring to AfPak and Iraq, but we should avoid a repeat of either one.

On drugs, with 12M illegals from south of the border, we will find that the narco state of Mexico is our future. It will be the Mafia of Mafias. We could kill it here and there by legalizing drugs.

It would also vastly reduce the incarceration rates, especially for blacks. Jailing so many young black males is creating much of the dysfunction in the black underclass. Sure, some of them might have been criminals, anyway, but most of them probably would not have been.

If the Europeans, S. Koreans, and Japanese want our military to protect them, they should share a major portion of the cost. One of the casualties of our exploding deficits will be imploding military strength. We should start paring down our 200+ military bases left over from the 40's and 50's NOW."

Hi seg. I'm nor Paleo but I hope you don't mind my commenting on your post and on a previous one you wrote (I wrote comments and didn't post because the thread was getting very old)

I agree with you on all of the above ideas. I have something further to say to you, which, I hope expresses my fundamental agreement and disagreements with you with regard to SS.

You see, at heart I'm a libertarian who hates the thought of Gov being able to control moneys that I might wish to set aside for my retirement or any other purpose at all. Therefore it's my natural inclination to support privatization or at least of allowing individuals to invest a portion of their accounts.

There was a period of time where I openly supported this, as well. Here's my current position on this important issue and (I think) it easily allows you to follow my own logic regarding any other socialist program.

I know it will get a frigid reception here but still, I want you to see that there may be a different logic driving liberals to support "personally invasive" programs such as single payer.

The prevailing wisdom of conservatives that I hear in these threads is that we are either seeking to create a class that's dependent on Big Gov in order to acquire and remain in power or that we somehow feel that Big Gov should have a big role in our daily lives because we're comfortable with a culture of dependency.

I think these assertions may be true for some liberals. They are false for others. As someone who, for a number of years, thought about actually trying to become invisible to Gov...who romanticized about just disappearing (officially, that is), and who hated the idea that the Gov might have any degree of control over me or knowledge as to my activities my own position gradually changed because of my moral and religious beliefs. Anyway...read below if you're interested. It's a bit long and was directed specifically to you. I originally wrote it after reading your thoughts about privatization and wanted you to know that I and many libs support the idea of it and oppose its implementation. Here you go:

seg: I agree with your solution for SS---in a perfect world; since we don't have one and since SS is intended to insure that people don't end up as pitiful wretches dying in the streets, it needs to be sufficiently funded to cover everyone (with SSI picking up the career unemployed) and that requires this "ponzi scheme" as many call it. My reasons for being willing to accept such an invasive Big Gov approach appear below.

I too supported a limited privatization plan similar to what you are proposing (I like your proposal, in the abstract) in the past. I came to realize that this solution could only have meaning if it were the beginning of the dismantling of SS, which I think is the only goal of supporters of this approach that makes sense.

I realized that I wanted it because I wanted to have control of my own money and not the Gov. As a "socialist", you see, I hate the idea of Gov handling my money too...lol. In the end I was forced to conclude that, bad as the Gov is at handling money there would be no way to insure that poorer Americans received their benefits if we went to a private system. There simply wouldn't be enough people paying in enough money to sustain it and it would have to be phased out.

So we're left with the deeper question of whether we should all be compelled to subsidize our fellow citizens at the risk of depleting our own dwindling (for many) resources. I think we should. Conservatives violently disagree with this; that's their perogative.

My personal reasons are entirely moral and religious. It's not that I want big gov to help anyone because it creates dependency; dependency sucks and it can definitely become harmful to the people who fall under its sway, ifi they view it as their lot in life to be that way.

I consider it to be our public duty to help---because there is suffering. I simply reject those who say it's a private duty. Private becomes public because, for me, the meaning of public (as in Gov) is the banding together of private entities for the defense, protection, and well being of ALL those taking part in this compact---ergo, if Jesus or Buddha or whomever (they all say the same thing when it comes to helping suffering people) enjoins us to feed the hungry the collective we (the public we...Gov) is definitely included in that injunction)and the people who need protection or care are participants in the compact itself, so they're subject to its provisions (they have to fight wars, for example) and they are also receive its benefits.

The Constitution too states that we should provide for the general welfare of the country. I think avoiding a scenario where old folks die in the streets is included in that proviso as well.

Keeping our citizens from dying or living in terrible poverty is something that I believe to be worthwhile. Social Security has helped to do this for 75 years. I see it as a very undesirable but necessary system. I've also looked at estimates as to when the system will run out of funds; it's not until the 2030s. So I say keep it for now.

tjampel:
I often enjoy your posts, and I would have invited you if I had looked more thoroughly at who had checked in.

I was a little confused at some of your points, but I will base these remarks as a response to what I THINK you are saying:
(1) I believe that we have a moral duty (but certainly not a Constitutional duty) to help our fellow men and women, even when they demonstrably don't deserve it.
(2) However, unless someone is demonstrably mentally incompetent, they should be allowed to make their own choices within the bounds of the rights of others.
(3) This implies the right to suffer from the consequences of their own choices.
(4) Since as a society we are not willing to let others have the consequences of dying of hunger or exposure, we should provide a minimal safety net one cannot fall below. It should not be comfortable because of perverse incentives, but it should be enough to support life without terror and suffering.
(5) SS largely satisfies those minimal needs for survival and Medicare takes care of the rest for those who are poor or helpless. It is good that they do.
(6) Those who could not survive without their SS should not have the right to squander it in advance since we have to make them whole if they do. Hence, their permission to invest their SS contributions should be minimal, at most.
(7) Those who can demonstrate their "financial independence") of SS should be allowed to invest a major portion of their SS contributions.
(8) Those who fall between those two extremes should have the ability to invest proportionate to their ability to finance their own old age.
(9) Unless someone is mentally incompetent, they should be allowed to invest their SS contributions until age 30, regardless of financial independence. In other words, let them have a shot at it.

I would make a similar argument for "free" medical care. It should be minimal, not comfortable (except for children and the mentally incompetent).

I think liberals tend to discount the consequences of perverse incentives. I am keenly aware of it as a graduate from the working poor. I saw the humiliation of the helplessly dependent and the degradation of the voluntarily dependent. It was easy to tell which poor people would ultimately rise above it: they refused charity except in dire necessity. My parents chose to make meals of beans and corn, to patch clothing, and to work extra jobs when necessary.

The helplessly dependent suffer only humiliation with such pride. Both outcomes should be minimized by society as much as possile.

In the US, lax welfare eligibility encouraged generations of dependence. Since the multi-generational welfare dependency was highly disproportionately among blacks, it also produced unhealthy conflicts and divisions along racial lines that we still have not recovered from. In Great Britain, the dole produced similar effects among whites, especially lower class white men. The "yob" phenomenon today has its roots in the continuance of the dole.

Unfortunately, dems have a conflict of interest when it comes to dependency since it is likely that the overwhelming majority of dependent people votes for dems. Hence, dems have a perverse incentive to maintain large rosters of dependent people.

Oddly, dems also are strongly supported by those who inherit their wealth, especially the 3rd and greater generations. The same is true of trust fund "babies." What is not surprising is that the higher taxes they support have little effect on themselves. Note that estate taxes have long been evaded by the very wealthy using non-taxable trusts.

Reps generally represent the private producers of wealth at all levels. Those folks naturally have a disproportinate share of wealth (whatever indirect credit others may claim, they directly produced products and marketable services). Naturally, they wish to keep what they see as their own money after paying for defense, roads, and other shared utilities and services. They and reps have an incentive to discourage funding of those who are dependent by their own choice. Of course, deciding who really has a choice and who does not is not simple.

A related problem is the disappearance of jobs for those with minimal education and skills. This disproportionately affects those with low IQs and education in whites, blacks, and Hispanices. These folks would be better off if we brought back old-time sweat shops. They would learn skills, including the basic ones of getting to work on time, staying at work all day, and learning to become productive. Right now we have men who see no better choice than a life of crime and/or mooching off women with jobs. ANY job is better than that for them and for society.

"scottkj:

When the economy is in the tank and unemployement is high, people love their Presidents to appear on Jerry Springer, oh I mean "The View." Why can't these pollsters understand the adoration America has for Obama? For God's sake the man went on "The View.""

I am certainly not a fan of The View, but my fiancee watches it sometimes and it is not a bunch of hens cackling like people make it out to be. Some of the women they have on there are morons, sure, but a few of them are pretty sharp, and the interview they did with Obama was very serious in tone and they asked him some tough questions. To compare it to Jerry Springer is pretty ridiculous.

I'm sure you're probably not a fan, but Jon Stewart did a very good piece on Obama's "View" appearance a few days ago. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-29-2010/leader-s-digest

But, by all means, keep spouting off empty talking points without exploring their context at all. It makes for great entertainment for those of us with a clue.

Chris V.:
Thanks for the link to Stewart. Since the election he gouges both sides, which is good to see.

I did watch some of Obama on the View, and yes there were some "tough" questions. Regardless of the forum, the problem is often not the questions (which you or I could probably anticipate quite easily) but the free pass on the answers. That is true of most interviews, debates, etc.

Unlike Bush, for example, Obama is not hounded by persistent challenges to his answers, in part because he cuts it off by giving interminable answers, relying on his ever present teleprompters in what amounts to running out the clock. Not to mention the fact that few reporters want to risk hurting him politically. He also gives incredibly few opportunities to the press to quiz him.

In the View, for example, Obama answers a question about being overly criticized (wow, that was a tough one!) by first saying there are honest disagreements and that his administration is not perfect (how humble!), then saying in a thoughtful, understanding way that critics are just playing politics, unlike him, who never plays politics and is just looking out for the national interest.

It would be nice to see him challenged on such transparent sophistry every now and again. I certainly do not expect it from the View (and neither did he). I do expect from the press, assuming he gives them the opportunity again. However, only Fox, Tapper, and an occassional other seem to make any effort to make him defend his answers.

In this vein, I want to add that Gibbs has to be the smarmiest press secretary of all times. Considering the competition, that is remarkable. Like early Bush, Obama is ill-served by press secretaries who have the role of weaving and dodging rather than being informative. For Bush, Snow and Perino were too late in the day for Bush, but they were remarkably straight-forward.

As for Obama's fake humility, I am reminded of a great story about LaGuardia, the short,florid, Italian-American way back in the radio days who was probably the most popular mayor of all time. Asked repeatedly by reporters if his administration had not made a huge blunder on some issue, he replied: "You bet! And when I make a mistake, its a beaut."

Can you imagine any politician today saying something like that?

They should. What more can you say to criticize someone after they make a free, no-excuses admission without couching it in self-pity or the suggestion that it is the only mistake they have every made, etc?

Great posting, Seg! I especially liked your point about compassionate, yet spartan safety net. I have advocated for free, state run clinics and homeless shelters in the past, as a safety net substitute for what we have currently. Be it Medicaid, Welfare or endless unemployment benefits. Something that will provide you decent care and give you a chance to restore your dignity, yet not cushy enough to forgo alternatives, should those be within reach. Of course I have close to zero faith in government's ability to maintain such a delicate balance and not ending up in yet another monstrosity of a program. Perhaps if it was outsourced to charities? Or India:-)

I agree that the role of our military in Germany and Japan has changed long ago, and along with the rest of Europe and Korea, they are at the point where they should pay for our services, should they want them continued. As far as reducing our presence on the rest of the globe, I think it's case by case. For example, Iran's nuclear ambition would have arisen with or without our presence in the region. But I am certainly very glad that we have significant presence on two of Iran's borders. I think we can greatly reduce defense spending with more pragmatic selection and execution of big ticket hardware projects.

Drug prohibition - I don't know. Reducing crime, especially large syndicates, is a very compelling argument to me. On the other hand, I am led to believe that increased consumption necessarily follows legalization. Supposedly, there is enough research on this to render it "irrefutiatable common wisdom". And that also carries huge societal costs. So far, I am a "NO" vote on legalizing pot proposition that's coming up in CA in November. As I tell my pot smoking acquaintances - legalization will probably just make it more expensive.

seg;

Thanks for your response and for addressing some of my points.

One area that you don't seem to tackle, with specifics at least, is the best way to get health care to the middle and lower middle class working people who have small businesses or are self-employed or whose employers don't provide health insurance.

These people are at far greater risk than the poor, who have Medicaid. You can get a transplant on Medicaid, I believe; but no middle class (let's define this as family of 4 making less than 60k) family can afford to pay for a transplant or chronic care such as disalysis, chemo, or long term use of expensive drug regimens. They can't afford good coverage that would pay for it; their catastrophic policies are capped and won't pay for it for long; emergency rooms don't cover this sort of thing.

Let me try to frame this issue a bit:

How to provide care for mainstream working people with the kinds of chronic diseases that can be treated (so that those suffering from them can have a normal or near-normal life span) but are too expensive for insurers to want to cover?

This is a huge problem right now for small business owners, btw with, for example, just one sick employee requiring 100k/yr in medical treatment and up care can attest to. Many companies just push the rates up to unaffordable levels, virtually forcing the company to dump the employee. What solutions do you offer here? I assume you support the right of an insurance company to raise premiums for insured's who have costly treatment regimens, whether they can pay or not; is there any way out of this mess for a small business owner like me, who wants my employee to get treatment but can't afford a 100k premium for that person? This exact scenario has been played out many times.

Most people with pre-existing conditions and no coverage through employers are ineligible for coverage without "Obamacare" and you'd repeal it, so I assume you favor allowing insurance companies to deny coverage as they see fit. If HCR is repealed insurers are back to denying coverage to all high risk insureds, increasing deductibles, capping benefits annually and cumulatively over one's lifetime; that means no treatment for those people who can no longer afford their expensive drugs or chemo or dialysis or whatever (after they've sold off all their assets, generally). Some have committed suicide or intentionally stopped taking medication so that they can die before having spent all their money (so they can leave something for their families). That anyone would ever have to do this in America makes me sick, actually. Again...what if any solutions do you offer. How would it work?

Having the greatest treatment centers and docs in the world means either sharing them with everyone or not. I see no choice but to treat these people even though it's so incredibly expensive. I don't see, in your response, any way to provide this treatment. Do you have suggestions. I'd note that, IMO private charities are not designed to support individuals with 100k/yr in treatment costs; do we pull the plug? If not, what to do?

Without this treatment people won't enjoy the same life spans; some otherwise healthy people will die in their 30s an 40s of heart, kidney, liver diseases, cancer, etc. I consider that unacceptable. You may disagree on that; my arguments are based on religious/moral beliefs and I won't reiterate them here.

Suffice it to say that treating these people will require a lot of private or government money. How to make that happen or...do we let them die. Or..feel free to propose a 3rd or 4th way.

Obviously this one issue has nothing to do with a culture of dependency at all. It has to do with people who've had full times jobs their whole live and even made good money simply not being in a position to continue to receive insurance benefits and, subsequently running out of assets because neither they nor most Americans can afford 100k+ a year for treatment.

So I need to see exactly how your compassion manifests in terms of providing affordable insurance for these specific people---insurance which has no lifetime limit and can't be rescinded without active fraud and which they can get if they have a preexisting condition (they are somehow aided in obtaining insurance from a high risk pool).

I am happy to have a dialog about alternatives to Obama care, but the alternatives would have to be ones which make insurance affordable for lower and middle class workers to cover long term chronic care. Without that we have a dual system where one group lives longer than the other. Those who work hard to make this country great deserve great medical care. They don't deserve to have their dialysis machines shut off. But that's exactly what's going to be happening if HCR is repealed and is not replaced by a decent alternative.

On Welfare and "culture of dependency"

I approved how Clinton reformed the welfare system, except for the fact that there was not enough money allocated for training. If memory serves me correctly that was blocked by Republicans. I think that was short-sighted.

On Green Jobs and Energy

I'd like to see both parties work together on a retraining program but it's pointless unless there are new industries and available jobs in them in which to place trainees. In this current wreck of an economy (for workers, at least) I believe that retraining workers for green industries is key. There has to be a way both parties can work together on this. It really doesn't matter if you're a climate change denier or tree-hugger. We've got to start competing in these areas; we're getting left far behind in many of them. For example,

I was in Taiwan earlier this year. Their new high speed rail system puts this country to shame. We have one decent rail line in the whole country...NYC-DC. That's it. Taiwan's line is longer already (and its a tiny island...I've traveled it one tip to the other).

Mainland China already has a few thousand (yes, thousand) kilometers of 180+ mph rail lines (significantly faster than our Acela line)and they're building thousands of km more at an astonishing rate.

Holland has the highest percentage of wind-driven electricity in the world...they totally blow us away. Few wind farm components are made in the US despite that fact that we have a multitude of abandoned steel mills, and thousands of square mile of sun-baked desserts are unused.

Of course there's a good reason why Europe is ahead of us in renewables; gas and oil are so expensive there (more than $5/gallon) that wind is very cometitive. I think you need to have oil at about $4.25/gal for renewables to achieve parity.

Frankly, though I know you'll disagree I believe that rising costs for gas and heating oil are a good thing for this economy, because they will drive investment in renewables which, along with nuclear fusion (in 30 years now, most likely) are complimentary long term solutions. By that time few will be using oil or gas or coal except perhaps for steel-making and a few other industries that require non-electric furnaces.

I reluctantly support nuclear if it were really possible to do it on a large scale...build 30-50 new plants (and successfully handle the waste) because, again, it creates work, and it reduces CO2 and other emissions.

StatyPolly:
I think we are fast approaching the point where our fiscal mess will require drastic downsizing of our military costs.

It is probably just as well since we otherwise would fly into unnecessary conflicts, especially with China. We need a ruthless and realistic assessment of what is critical to us and what is not.

Containing Iran is not important at all. They are welcome to AfPak and to Syria. They are not welcome to the Middle Easts oil field. We bought them, we own them by proxie, and by God we will fight for them. I do not believe Iran will attack Israel. We should match their threats with a behind the scenes ultimatumL back off or we destroy Qom, your leaderships' homes and meeting places, all of your oil refineries, and your electrical grid. More can follow.

Our drug policies are abject failures that cost much, destroy much, and protect no one from themselves. Alcohol abuse did not spiral out of control after Prohibition. It remained the terrible scourge it has been for millenia.

Human behavioral problems are often intractable and not amenable to coercion.

tjampel:
I would love to respond in depth as you have responded to me, but I am out of time.

I will say this: I believe in helping people minimally, but not less than that. Obama seeks to make it APPEAR to be painless and cost free.

It is a myth that these costs can and will be paid for by slivers of the population, whether the "rich" or corporations. All will pay either directly or indirectly.

I believe the government should provide ONLY catastrophic coverage. The truth is that even the working poor buy cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, expensive tennis shoes, etc.

A working class family has more material goods, better food, etc. today than an upper middle class family had 40 years ago. The only positive for the rich back then over today was vanity housing.

My point is that there is no need for middle income people to be totally subsidized. None of us can continue the inflated standards of living we have enjoyed from borrowed money and ignored future obligations. The standard of living can be reduced by heavy taxes (VAT) or by paying for our own health care (except for the very poor). Note that countries with "free" health care also have far less promiscous use of MRIs, elective surgeries, etc., than we have. Europe, in particular, has far less disposable personal income than we do (

We should either have a single payer system or a catastrophic care system. Instead, what we are getting is a national HMO that provides teeth cleaning, counseling, griping to the doctor, and generally spectacularly ineffective behavioral modification efforts.

You remember how much we all loved HMOs? Just wait until it is an HMO with all of the flexibilty, powers of coercion, and bureacracy of the federal government.

seg:

"I believe the government should provide ONLY catastrophic coverage."

OK...what does that consist of? My emphasis is entirely on long term chronic illness that can't be dealt with in the ER. Many of these types of illnesses only require drugs to maintain the patient and allow her/him to lead a normal life (some require regular visits and use of blood filtration machines, etc. But they are very expensive drugs and processes; far too expensive for these people to pay for them.

Once again please try to focus on a family of 4 where both parents work making around 60k (take home pay of 40k).

I don't think it helps any of us in this country nor does it help society to lose, say...the father...to a chronic disease that costs 40k per year to treat, let's say.

Does your catastrophic policy cover this for the duration of this person's life?

I really want to hear specifics if I'm going to be reassured that conservatives will do what it takes to preserve life in these situations.

tjampel:
"I really want to hear specifics if I'm going to be reassured that conservatives will do what it takes to preserve life in these situations."

You have given me an awesome responsibility. I will be careful in what I say.

To me, personally, "catastrophic" means beyond the person's ability to pay, where ability to pay is figured in a hard-headed way. This is what insurance of all types is intended to handle.

For example, an individual should be expected to have some level of co-pay, even if it is $1. There are really not all that many who have NO disposable income, unless you count expensive tennis shoes, ipods, etc. as dire necessities. For example, I have read reputable studies in the past that showed that virtually everyone on welfare has either a part-time job that was simply not listed or a cash under the table job that was not listed.

Giving hefty subsidies for office visits to the doctor for families who make $60k/yr would not happen under my rules unless they had illnesses that were financially debilitating.

Again, part of my reasoning is that the standard of living in the US is artifically high, up and down the ladder. We have come to consider luxuries as necessities, even for working class people. For example, homes today are very expensive for three reasons: (1) zoning restrictions driving up the cost of land, (2) expensive amenities like paved sidewalks, which are not needed at all for surbubia, (3) much larger houses with multiple bathrooms and other costly luxuries. Cynics charge that driving up the cost of housing in suburbia has the added benefit of keeping out proles and minorities.

I grew up in a 1,000 sqft house with 6 brothers and sisters and one bathroom. Even today that house would be inexpensive. That size house is typical of Europe and England today. I would have greatly preferred a bedroom to myself growing up, but it was not at all a necessity.

It is not that I do not want people to have a high standard of living; it is that we cannot continue subsidizing standards of living to the extent we do for all classes and income levels.

Subsidies that take the form of tax writeoffs primarily help the affluent. We should end interest payment tax deductions and other subsidies to buying homes. We should eliminate the tax deduction for health insurance and for attending college. We should eliminate tax deductions for charitable giving, and so on.

The alternative is the VAT, which is an extremely regressive tax even when "necessities" are exempted. Obama and friends want to pretend that subsidies can not only continue but be vastly expanded, without costing 95% of the people anything. We will let the rich pay for it!

That is pure hokum, as surely you agree. The rich have always been able to evade taxes, thanks to our ever helpful Congress, both democrats and republicans. Just ask John Kerry about the many strategies and ploys that pop up when tax rates are high. Ask the Kennedys and Rockefellers how they have evaded estate taxes all of these generations.