Congressional Approval Falls Into Single Digits For First Time Ever&#3

[Lounge Daddy]

[url="http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance"]This in from Rassmusin:[/url]

[quote]The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.[/quote]

I am shocked that the Democrat's strategy of promising a harder working full time Congress... and then actually taking extra time off on the first week for a football game didn't boost the favorability.

I am equally surprised that favorability dropped for under a Dem leadership while they were telling the American people again and again that we are losing a war, while we were actually winning; that oursoldiers are terrorists, while we are battling Islamic terrorists; and saying America losing the war means congressional gains for the Democrats.

I am shocked that the favorability dropped for the Dems after the entire media carnival that the Dem leadership created over the so-called "Plame Affair" to try and pin scandal on the White House... only to find out that the name was given to the press by a Democrat in office.

These are record-breaking historic lows. You know what this means? It means that, overwhelmingly, our government no longer represents us. How did we allow this to happen? How do we stop it?

[Archaeology cat]

That's sad

[Justin86]

I think it's funny that everyone keeps babbling about how low Bush's approval ratings are, when Congress's has been consistently lower for what, at least the past two years now?

[rkwright]

I think people are generally tired of hearing 'bad news'. Someone needs to give us 'hope' and look to better things. Dems complain left and right; the war is bad, the economy is bad, healthcare is bad, social security is bad, the world hates america, we hate america, blah, blah, blah... While some of these might be true, someone needs to be giving answers and then actually working out these answers. I think voters thought that dems would fix the problems they complain about, only to find that they don't do anything at all.

[Justin86]

Dems never do anything when they get Congress or the White House. Seriously, when was the last time the Democrats got us out of a war?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1595880' date='Jul 9 2008, 08:32 AM']Dems never do anything when they get Congress or the White House. Seriously, when was the last time the Democrats got us out of a war?[/quote]
Truman won WWII?

[CatherineM]

I think one of the reasons Congress is getting such low marks is lack of bipartisanship. I think the average voter is tired of the fighting that gets in the way of ever getting anything done. I truthfully don't care if the Republicans or the Democrats or the Martians are in charge so long as the issues are dealt with. I know that my view isn't going to win every time because that's how democracy works, but the country has increasingly difficult issues to deal with, and it's like the country is being run by a bunch of squabbling adolescents.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1596003' date='Jul 9 2008, 04:05 PM']I think one of the reasons Congress is getting such low marks is lack of bipartisanship. I think the average voter is tired of the fighting that gets in the way of ever getting anything done. I truthfully don't care if the Republicans or the Democrats or the Martians are in charge so long as the issues are dealt with. I know that my view isn't going to win every time because that's how democracy works, but the country has increasingly difficult issues to deal with, and it's like the country is being run by a bunch of squabbling adolescents.[/quote]
It might help if the Martians were in charge.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1595904' date='Jul 9 2008, 10:11 AM']Truman won WWII?[/quote]
It's amazing to look at what that particular political party used to be, and what it has morphed into shortly after the JFK years. The same changes have beenoccurring over the recent years to the Republican Party.

It used to be a kick-butt national defence, followed closely by defending others; it used to be a tax cut party; it used to be all about individual liberty party.

Then LBJ takes office and immediately makes a horrific entitlement-driven socialism (aka The Great Society) the centerpiece of his presidency--entitlement to aid to education,entitlement to government health care, tax funded "urban renewal and beautification," environmental conservation, state funded "war on poverty," and removal of obstacles to the so-called "right to vote."

The most alarming aspect of LBJ's entrance into the White House, along with his sweeping socialist agenda, is that LBJ made that communist and anti-American collectivist Ramsey Clark the United States Attorney General. Over the years has also defended Nazi war criminals, murderers, and dictators; including recent figures such as Saddam Hussein, David Koresh, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (Rwandan genocide), Slobodan Milošević, and other contract killers, Nazis, and thugs. Notably, Clark is a member of the Workers' World Party, an international Communist organization. He is a frequent speaker at anti-America rallies held by International ANSWER, an organization that he is a founder of.

Note the alarming and drastic change in direction within the Democratic Party following 1963. And then [url="http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm"]read the warning that was given to the United States in January of 1963[/url], about people conspiring to either tear the United States of America down from within, or change the face of this Republic until it is no longer recognisable. This person testified under oath before Congress that the particular group that he was working with were Soviet Communists, and they were seeking to use our free system against us.

A lot of the goals listed seem to have been met. Note goal number 15, "Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States."

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1595337' date='Jul 8 2008, 03:10 PM'][url="http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance"]This in from Rassmusin:[/url]
I am shocked that the Democrat's strategy of promising a harder working full time Congress... and then actually taking extra time off on the first week for a football game didn't boost the favorability.

I am equally surprised that favorability dropped for under a Dem leadership while they were telling the American people again and again that we are losing a war, while we were actually winning; that oursoldiers are terrorists, while we are battling Islamic terrorists; and saying America losing the war means congressional gains for the Democrats.

I am shocked that the favorability dropped for the Dems after the entire media carnival that the Dem leadership created over the so-called "Plame Affair" to try and pin scandal on the White House... only to find out that the name was given to the press by a Democrat in office.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
i'm shocked as well

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1596072' date='Jul 9 2008, 12:15 PM']Then LBJ takes office and immediately makes a horrific entitlement-driven socialism (aka The Great Society) the centerpiece of his presidency--entitlement to aid to education,entitlement to government health care, tax funded "urban renewal and beautification," environmental conservation, state funded "war on poverty," and removal of obstacles to the so-called "right to vote."[/quote]

Forgive me, but your post seems to imply that you are [b]against[/b] these things!? Most specifically, are you against the "removal of obstacles to the so-called 'right to vote'"?

Are you not familiar with the Church's Catholic Social Teaching? The preferential option for the poor? Are you not aware of the devastation that poverty has wrought in urban centers such as my own home Chicago? Are you unfamiliar with the personal injustices -- not the societal, institutionalized injustices that are the fault of no one -- that were enacted purposefully as "obstacles to the so-called 'right to vote'" in the 50s and 60s? Have you not looked into the parent-battered eyes of a 10-year-old on Chicago's South Side, who had recently attempted suicide, as he told you that your relationship with him "meant so much"? A kid who's "entitlement to education" was the only assurance that he had of having a safe place to simply be during the day?

Dear friend in Christ, I think that you make the mistake of confusing the evil of [b]socialism[/b] with the legitimate need for [b]social programs[/b] that level the playing field. The latter simply does not equate to the former.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1596499' date='Jul 9 2008, 07:47 PM']Forgive me, but your post seems to imply that you are [b]against[/b] these things!? Most specifically, are you against the "removal of obstacles to the so-called 'right to vote'"?

Are you not familiar with the Church's Catholic Social Teaching? The preferential option for the poor? Are you not aware of the devastation that poverty has wrought in urban centers such as my own home Chicago? Are you unfamiliar with the personal injustices -- not the societal, institutionalized injustices that are the fault of no one -- that were enacted purposefully as "obstacles to the so-called 'right to vote'" in the 50s and 60s? Have you not looked into the parent-battered eyes of a 10-year-old on Chicago's South Side, who had recently attempted suicide, as he told you that your relationship with him "meant so much"? A kid who's "entitlement to education" was the only assurance that he had of having a safe place to simply be during the day?

Dear friend in Christ, I think that you make the mistake of confusing the evil of [b]socialism[/b] with the legitimate need for [b]social programs[/b] that level the playing field. The latter simply does not equate to the former.[/quote]

I'm absolutely saying that I am against those things--being overseen by the government.

What part of Catholic social teaching says that it is the specific role of government to oversee state-run entitlement programs? More specifically, what part of Catholic social teaching says that the government needs to steal wealth from one person and hand it over to another?

And the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee a "right to vote." So the U.S. President shouldn't be making such promises.

LBJ's single purpose was nothing short of seeking to increase government dependency. The best way to hold on to power is to get people to depend enough to be bribed. That's also a sure way to ruin a country.

An often quoted observation about how the average life of a great civilized system is 200 years is worth repeating here:

[b][font="Times New Roman"]A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury...
The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. [/font][/b]

Edited July 10, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[CatherineM]

I am a product of social programs. I wouldn't have been able to attend college without PELL grants, without state help when I became disabled, I would have been on the street in my wheelchair, oh I forgot, that's also how I got the wheelchair, so I guess I would have been crawling on the street instead. There were times I fed my foster kids with food stamps and let Medicaid pay for their doctor's bills.

I pay taxes now, in two countries on the same income, and I spend my time volunteering in my community to help pay back in gratitude the help I received from society when I truly needed it.

It really saddens me when I hear Catholics denigrate helping the poor. When I give speeches about being disabled, I point out that most people are simply temporarily able bodied. 90% of us will at some time in our lives become either temporarily or permanently disabled. There are car wrecks, postpartum depression, skiing accidents, strokes, work injuries, dementia, and even more serious mental or physical illnesses. I hope those who have no compassion for the poor, disabled or disadvantaged, find that compassion shown to them should they ever be placed in the position that I very unexpectedly found myself in.

[Lounge Daddy]

I have a real problem with the assumption that without the government, there would be no aid for the poor. To equate criticism of state-run welfare with criticism of social charity is a false argument.

It's a false statement the same as saying "if you are against embrionic stemcell research, you are against stem cell research." Those are false choices.

[CatherineM]

You must be from a part of the country where families are ostracized if they don't take care of their poor or crippled relations. Not a single member of my family offered to take me in when I was unable to move for 7 weeks, let alone for the years of rehab after that.

There must be an abundance of church and private charities to help out people in Michigan as well. I didn't have that in the South. My pastor sat at the hospital 3 days with me after I got hurt, but he couldn't take me home with him. Catholic Charities offered 48 hours in a hotel, and that was the best help I got. A friend called 147 different agencies, charities, and organizations on my behalf, and I got no help.

All I can say is that you must live in paradise, don't ever move.