In a recent poll by CBS/New York Times, Americans appear to be pessimistic on the overall economic outlook and direction of the country, the lowest since President Obama stepped into the White House in his first two months.
The poll shows the gloomy mood of the American public pulling down the ratings of President Obama and both parties in the House of Representatives. After the first 100 days of a Republican controlled leadership in US Congress, 75 percent of the respondents disapprove how the legislators in the US Capitol have been doing their work.
The survey showed a big change in disposition of many Americans, a stark contrast thinking the US economy is getting worse, a rise of 13 percentage points in a month. This is in the midst of debates on how the government would meet future financial obligations, unstable employment and sky rocketing oil prices.
How do you feel about the clear division of party lines in the Republican led Congress and the Democrat led Senate? How do you rate the work they have done so far? Do you approve a divided government, where all the work being done is opposing one another instead on helping the country move forward?
zDVtS8 , [url=http://ckxfzgracimk.com/]ckxfzgracimk[/url], [link=http://aglnenuoubki.com/]aglnenuoubki[/link], http://jspmpddbhlzn.com/
Wow, this is in every respect what I ndeeed to know.
I believe that if people want to be represented with their vote they would never vote for those who tax and spend.
You betcha. From the way this question is phrased, I think Caitlin would benefit from a little deeper appreciation of exactly how our constitutionally divided government was designed and was intended to work by the founders. Perhaps a class in American history would help. Caitlin should consider that policies “helping the country move forward” according to Caitlin may very well be policies “helping the country move backward” according to the Dividist or others. Settling those policy differences by opposing one other in a divided government is exactly how our government is supposed to work.
The founders recognized the country was comprised of vastly different and competing interests that could never be reconciled into a single view of what comprises the “moving the country forward”. So they built a government architecture that give all these interests access to power, and permanently institutionalizing the ensuing argument. If we cannot agree or compromise on our collective perception of “moving the country forward” – then nothing gets passed. This is by design.
Divided government simply assures that everyone in our deeply divided country has a seat at the table when sweeping policies are proposed. If such policies cannot find bipartisan support, then those policies should not be enacted into law. Divided government stops it. This is as it should be.
In any case, I realize I am late to the commenting party, but this is just a courtesy comment to let you know this post was included in the latest edition of the Carnival of Divided Government – a periodic compilation of articles, posts, and great thoughts (or not) on the subject of divided government
@ Terell
You still don’t get the fact that “taxing the wealthy until they bleed’ is a negative sum game which equals to misery. The liberals philosophy on trickling down economy from the wealthy to the poor is very wrong. If you still don’t know, middle class in the 80’s diminished when they moved up into higher income brackets. Median income of “average Americans” grew considerably from 80’s to 90’s at the same time the wealthiest have decreased taxes. So should the “average John Doe” still yearn for the mega wealthy’s money if his income increases significantly. I would agree about the bail outs on how the rich played using government funds in risky markets which made more loses.
But here’s the thing, Obama gave them jobs instead of throwing them into jail (example is Goldman Sachs, a top Democrat donor). You’ve already blamed him for his incompetency
@ rubio “wealth distribution” happens on the opposite direction, wealth is channelling from the poor to the wealthy. Wages have stayed the same with inflation with the workers gradually being impoverished. And union power have decreased, ultimately devaluing the bargaining power of workers. How else do you think the rich get their wealth.
The rich have leashed billions of dollars thru public bailout funds thereby inflicting the US economy. Wealthy people are “nationalizing” their supposed loses whereby making a “private debt” into a “sovereign debt”. Who do you think gets hit the hardest when the “wealthy” starts “nationalizing” their loses, the poor which the government start by downsizing social programs and public services.
Wealthy people are “squandering” which they call “loses” but poor people gets the bad end. The well-meaning type that you try to conserve by asserting the “greedy old people” needs to be protected from yielding a decent share, only shows that “wealth distribution” from the poor to the rich is worse.
Democrats and Obama have been complacent in this issue so don’t get me wrong they can be blamed just the same.
Surveys actually showed American voters wants politicians in Capitol to get along together and not impose a single ideology on the country. But compromise for the good of every American is far from reality since there are just too many fundamentalist on both parties.
On the very contrary, divided government fails to deal with nagging problems that needs to be addressed the soonest. Nothing is accomplished on a gridlock and precious time and money is wasted by the officials
@ Julie I’ve been thinking on how this will work, for the past 2 years Democrats held the elected portions of the government (Congress, Senate and White House) and have their way with token resistance
One interesting note in US electoral history is that American voters are not interested and enthusiastic in keeping one political party in power way too long, both in the White House and the Congress.
Points to ponder for the clueless— Republicans don’t consider it’s the role of the government to “distribute wealth”, that is taxing and getting more money from the wealthy so they can give to the poor, while having government officials squander and put some bucks in their pockets. If the government focuses more on “wealth inequality”, we arched the tail of that ‘bell curve’.
One impression of many people is we’re playing the “zero sum game”. “Zero sum game” in economic theory is the mathematical representation of a financial situation where a person’s loss or gain would transform into balance the loses and gains of the other. Simply said, it doesn’t mean ‘if the rich gets poorer, the poor gets richer’. If you think advocated socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor works, look into Greece debt crisis.
Stop complaining the divided government will do no good for the country. This “forces greater cooperation” between the president and the congress which avoids just dealing with one party’s agenda.
Divided Government looks much better, majority of Americans wants concession and middle ground, rather than extremities. The public never watch closely on how the Democrats and Republicans get through with the legislation and they presume lawmakers meet half way
What the Democrats have not done is deal with the ‘Blue Dog Coalition’ or those centrist/moderate Democrat members in the Congress. Democrats never have a critical mass of elected officials. ‘Blue Dogs’ have been staying in the political center and they’ve been giving away precious votes.
I’ve always wondered why there were no basic competency evaluation tests of US voters. I’m piqued by mouth breeding ignorance who vote every term through partisanship.
No other way to fix things if Greedy Old Party is on the way!
Fixing every aspect of the country and the economy is on the way, not until professional liars and fools like 7th term congressman Paul Ryan interfering with their right wing propaganda and lies.
It’s just amazing how people blame the president and yet have not look at the political gridlock and the partisanship in the senate and the house. Haven’t people realized that the president is one cog in the whole mechanics of the government and not the whole of it. The founding fathers have made it a point no one person takes the brunt, but all takes the blame, either by working together for the common good or simply just going through the party lines. This divided government is ruining America to bits.