Only 34% know that Bush II bailed out the banks and not Obama!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    What does that say about the American electorate? Only 34 percent of Americans know that it was George II who signed into law the bank bailouts. How many Americans know that the Tea Party queen, Sarah Palin, supported the bank bailouts? I'll bet even fewer people know that she was for the bank bailouts now so unpopular on the extreme right wing of the political spectrum.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0...eve-financial-bailout-came-during-obamas-ter/

    Most Americans, not suprisingly, got fewer than 50 percent of the answers correct. What does this say about the state of our society? Are we worthy of the government we have inherited? Are we not a as a group acting like a bunch of drug addicted rats in a cage, repeatedly self stimulating ourselves until we die?

    How can we improve things?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. InTheFlesh77 Set the controls... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    177
    I'm guessing the same could be said of the public here in Blighty...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380

    Out Law Propaganda No more Bull shit if your caught your hung for treason.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    A good start would be producing an educated and intelligent populace as a rule not an exception. Not the only country to fall into that category though.
     
  8. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I seem to remember her blubbering on in her charming, gun totin', airheaded manner about how the bailout was supporting the economy. It was a fairly incoherent bit that surprised me at the end! :crazy:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That last line is just wunnerful.
     
  9. Omega133 Aus der Dunkelheit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,281
    Propaganda does need to be gotten rid of. But hanging people for freedom of speech? That's not the way to go about it.

    Throw away the hanging part and you've got a good idea. But the minute you try to get rid of it, the media will say that it goes against freedom of speech, or freedom of press; which it kind of does. Plus, propaganda has been around for a long time, I don't see it going away.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,706
    Why details matter

    Paul Krugman on Obama's numbers:

    But the only real puzzle here is the persistence of the pundit delusion, the belief that the stuff of daily political reporting—who won the news cycle, who had the snappiest comeback—actually matters.

    This delusion is, of course, most prevalent among pundits themselves, but it's also widespread among political operatives. And I'd argue that susceptibility to the pundit delusion is part of the Obama administration's problem.

    What political scientists, as opposed to pundits, tell us is that it really is the economy, stupid. Today, Ronald Reagan is often credited with godlike political skills — but in the summer of 1982, when the U.S. economy was performing badly, his approval rating was only 42 percent.

    My Princeton colleague Larry Bartels sums it up as follows: "Objective economic conditions — not clever television ads, debate performances, or the other ephemera of day-to-day campaigning — are the single most important influence upon an incumbent president's prospects for re-election." If the economy is improving strongly in the months before an election, incumbents do well; if it's stagnating or retrogressing, they do badly.

    Now, the fact that "ephemera" don't matter seems reassuring, suggesting that voters aren't swayed by cheap tricks. Unfortunately, however, the evidence suggests that issues don't matter either, in part because voters are often deeply ill informed.

    Suppose, for example, that you believed claims that voters are more concerned about the budget deficit than they are about jobs. (That's not actually true, but never mind.) Even so, how much credit would you expect Democrats to get for reducing the deficit?

    None. In 1996 voters were asked whether the deficit had gone up or down under Bill Clinton. It had, in fact, plunged—but a plurality of voters, and a majority of Republicans, said that it had risen.

    There's no point berating voters for their ignorance: people have bills to pay and children to raise, and most don't spend their free time studying fact sheets. Instead, they react to what they see in their own lives and the lives of people they know. Given the realities of a bleak employment picture, Americans are unhappy—and they're set to punish those in office.

    Underlying Krugman's suggestion is a certain indictment. Indeed, there are plenty for whom details matter little, and for those the classic political lie, such as a broken campaign promise, is the same as a calculated slander. But details matter; indeed, much of politics, just like sales and jurisprudence, depends on how one manipulates details. And perhaps that is a controversial term, manipulation. But just as no novel ever tells the whole story, nor any text of history achieve complete and unvarnished recitation, there are ways in which we might construe details to accurately represent that larger tale. Conveniently, for those who disdain details, this sort of manipulation of facts—highlighting key points in a story—is equal to all others, including willful misrepresentation.

    It makes things easier, see. If there is no difference, then one can defend an outright lie by complaining that nobody ever talks about the time the Grand Wizard rescued a drowning puppy. Because, you know, that's important. Balance. Led a lynch mob, rescued a puppy. It all balances out, you know?

    For those more inclined to attend the details, this is often what seems so pernicious about political argument. The practical result of willful misrepresentation is apparent in the TARP issue. The propaganda and lies are just too thick for people—even Obama's supporters—to catch up with. Fewer Democrats, for instance, know that Bush signed TARP, and not Obama. How the hell does that work?

    And I'll disagree with Mr. Krugman on one aspect: There is, indeed, some point in berating voters for their ignorance. But this is the catch-22 of our society. The predators will always take advantage of the weary masses; the weary will always resign themselves to some degree of predation. Yes, voters need to wake up and attend to facts. How we vote is an important decision.

    But, to the other, there are those predators. And these people are conducting themselves in an evil manner. They are willfully deceiving people in hopes of altering the outcomes of important decisions. That the president once went to a birthday party in Indonesia is of dubious significance. That he did or didn't sign some legislation that people attribute to him—and many resent him for—is a bit more pertinent. And it is a despicable influence in society that so fears the facts it would have Americans consider anything but.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Krugman, Paul. "The Pundit Delusion". The New York Times. July 19, 2010; page A21. NYTimes.com. July 20, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19krugman.html
     
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    I think Krugman sums it up rather nicely, "And it is a despicable influence in society that so fears the facts it would have Americans consider anything but."
     
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    joe, how did Obama vote on the Bail Out of the banks?
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Well he voted for it as did a majority of senators...including some Republican senators. And it was signed into law by a Republican president. And it was a Republican President who "shoved it down their throats" as you folks like to say.

    So given that, why is Obama the only socialist in town? Why are none of your folks, including Fox News, calling George II a socialist? Why are your people not calling representatives and senators who voted for it socialists?

    And more importantly, why are so many people so misinformed?
     
  14. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380

    If the banks were Not bailed out the USA would be Bankrupt, and we would prolly be in ww3 now.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,706
    Well ....

    Isn't the answer obvious?
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Why Tiassa, I think it is.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    joe, who said I agreed with George on the bail out, around here, were I live I am famous for my labeling of all the people in Washington as Federals, beltway people, who don't have a clue, or want to be clued in on the real world of America.

    The believe that they are smarter and more intelligent than any one in fly over country, and you seem to be doing your best to prove them right.

    We are losing our Republic, the protections of our Constitution, both parties in Washington City, are at fault, your precious Obama and Democrats are not the exception, they are the rule and norm, along with RINOs.

    Obama own just as much of the bank bail out as George with His vote, and the country is broke, and Obama and your Democrats are going to add Trillion Dollar deficits until at least 2020, and that isn't excusing George and His RINOs either.

    But the Raw Deal started with FDR and your precious Democrats and the Supreme Court instead of defending the Constitution, allowed the definition of General Welfare, to be corrupted into a unconstitutional money sucking black hole that has endangered the foundations of this nation.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Again, why is it that Obama is the only socialist in town? Why are you not calliing Republicans socialists? Why don't they get the fear words?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why do you have to create new words for Republicans with whom you disagree instead of using the "S" word?
     
  19. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I usually hate to have to agree with you, but this is an excellent question. Why does W. get off the hook for things that Obama gets criticized for?

    I like what Jesse Ventura said about the Tea Party (at least the dumb version) "They talk about Obama ruining the constitution, but where were they the last 8 years of George W. Bush?"

    It's amazing how selectively blind people can be when it comes to their team.
     
  20. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    I agree bro..

    Politicians are getting bad, if they have no political BS,on them they go personal//

    Its stupid and a waste of time.
     
  21. Mr.Spock Back from the dead Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,938
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Agreed!
     
  23. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    Originally Posted by Joepistole

    So given that, why is Obama the only socialist in town?


    Because he has better social skills ??
     

Share This Page