Obama's rating has only slipped because of the 30% of the republican party that was against Bush, has again returned to the party fold after the election - Obama support by Republicans was 45% in February and is only 20% now.  That is not the bailout, that is partisan politics.

So the question is why are poll respondents so vocal now?  I question the polls as well - one news report says the respondents reported having "serious reservations" while another said they reported "concern". Which is it?  What do those terms mean?  What was the question and how was it phrased?

First you state:

If you could check it out with my family and some close friends you would find it to be confirmed by many, if not by most, that beyond any doubt that I am, without any imperfection, a complete asshole.

However, stated sincerely, I now say that I am striving to not be as I have been perceived and judged.

So, with some much needed introspection, I, without equivocation, I here and now state that I understand where you stand on the immediate issue while allowing you to be a complete fudking idiot.

Truly, sir, as difficult as it for me attest to, I accept that you have the right to your political opinions and the [misguided] right to stand four square in front of and in defence of them.

Sincerely,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

Yes, even though I stand far away from accepting little or anything at all of merit about Bush and his policies, I can accept that you can accept such without my adjudicating you to be a complete fudking fool. Understand that this aint easy for me. Okay?

So,  

let's look at that then - here is a report on the difference in the two President's versions of the bank bailout :

In a desperate attempt to distance himself from Bush, the Obama administration has added some complicated economic terms packaged into a system he simply calls the “bad bank.”  The essence of the plan, however, is exactly what Bush originally proposed.

It goes on to point out the Bush plan removed the government from having any decision making regarding the loans.  That obviously changed when Barack took office and put a stop to CEO perks, bonuses, and parties that were being spent with the money.  I for one, think it was good for Obama to intervene.

Likewise, Bush, who did not want to bail out the auto industry but simply felt they should be allowed to fail, was pressured into a bailout plan which, like the bank plan, had NO oversight.  Again, these are LOANS, I see no problem with the government setting restrictions on how the funds are used ie : fuel mileage, saving jobs, and removing a poorly performing CEO from responsibility over the use of that money.

Now the government ownership, of GM, is something I haven't taken time to look at - did we BUY GM or provide a bailout loan?  I suspect the press and the detractors are not being honest in use of the term.  I believe the government ownership of a percentage of GM stock, is more properly a "stewardship" that is for a limited time (until the loans are repaid to a certain percentage/time).  Again, I see no problem, if GM is using OUR tax money, that OUR government shouldn't have a stake in how the company is run during the period it is financially beholden to U.S.

As for the stiimulus, I disagree with your assessment.  There is a lot to be desired in anything, but you cannot deny facts that are shown by what is happening with the money and its effects on job creation and economic stimulus.  Reports say that the figures used by Obama for projecting increases in jobs and economy are the EXACT figures used by Bush himself in 2002.  Experts say that with the use of the stimulus money at the rates that are occuring now (and I see it daily on the highway - infrastructure got a BIG boost) that the job predictions for this year will be easily met (they still argue over the overall figure of 6.5 million jobs but I don't know, signs of economic improvement are begining to peek through - the question is will they stay?).

I appreciate your comments - I too am very wary of the intervention, but I think I weigh it a bit more with trust than some others, LOL!

"...Obama adminstration has gone a few steps further. And the stimulus has a lot left to be desired in actually stimuluting the economy."    A bad thing?  Your suggestions or solutions or those of others you'd recommend?

"Many people, myself included, would [sic] and are against government bailouts and increased involvement in the private sector no matter whom maybe [sic] the President.

How about no traffic regulations or air traffic control and flight rules?  I betcha really have no use for labor laws also. Yes or no? What about environmental protection? Leave all such to the private sector?

In pursuit of happiness, truth, wisdom and justice,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

You want to be saved?  OK, we will loan you the money, but here are OUR terms.  I like that.

Any comments? Rebutal? Agreement? Change of topic?

Sincerely,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

Here, in Qingdao on the coast of China, we are twelve hours ahead of Easter Daylight Time back in A United States part of North America  [aka AUSPONA to me].

Could be that, depending on your time zone, when it is 0406 there, it is 1606 here. I apologise for the consternation I caused you for not taking this into consideration when posting my comments.

I hope that you can accept that I must, at least some of my time here, I must function in the regular daytime hours in Qingdao.

Of course, sir, I can wait for your rebuttal and comments.

Sincerely,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

Namaste,

NEW YORK – Federal authorities are investigating a new national outbreak of a bacteria-triggered illness, this time related to a sweet treat treasured by the heartbroken and children-at-heart — packaged raw cookie dough.

The federal Centers for Disease Control said its preliminary investigation shows "a strong association" between eating raw refrigerated cookie dough made by Nestle and the illnesses of 65 people in 29 states whose lab results have turned up E. coli bacteria since March.

Could it be, I am only asking, that a government, that any government has the right to be intrusive into and pose questions about the production of and the product for consumption of its populace?

I mean like the tax payers? Ya know?  Can any such taxpayers, ya know, expect that a government , any government, should and would be interested in or in some way, in the least, responsive  to the welfare of its' citizens?

How 'bout this?

Sincerely,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

Some idiot news commentator, within the past 24 hours, was going off about how the bailouts of banks and AIG international insurance giant and the auto manufactures "started by President Obama back in September" are becoming worrisome to the public now.

Soon the undiscerning, uneducated, unaware and seemingly uniformly unenlightened uncaring fascist, unpatriotic, despotic, knee-jerk, ignorant, neoconservative, ghoulish [fudking] sheepel, primarily but not necessarily Republicans, back home in  A United States part of North America [AUSPONA], my beloved homeland, will be told and directed to believe that the egregious greed and inept policies of the now five-month-old Obama Administration led to and are directly and singularly responsible for the chaos our president has to wade through now to grab the anchor chain of our sinking ship of state to tow it into calmer seas.

More fear-mongering underhanded deceitfully kleptocratic egregiously retrograde sons-a-bitches [fudkers], as just delineated above, will be relentless in their attacks on President Obama as he charts the new courses needed to sort out and resolve in an honest effort while being honest with us about the immense difficulty and hardships we face in  returning a sense of honor to the office of president and to our once great nation.

Sincerely in pursuit of truth, wisdom, peace and justice,

David Tecumseh Schmidt 

"I think that Obama just finished the job and is blaming it on Bush..."  What does this mean?

Finished what job? Blaming what on Bush?

Any comment on who earned and deserves the blame for contriving, conniving, deceitfully fostering, concocting, promulgating the egregiously disastrous policies and legislative actions that put us in the enormous and deep economic quagmire President Obama has yet to clear up after being in office for nearly a whole half year.

Huh? Comment please.

Sincerely in pursuit of peace and justice, wisdom and truth,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

I think if you look at approval ratings, you will simply see that the 40% of your fellow republicans who lost faith in Bush as reflected in his end of term ratings, went back to supporting their party and opposing the new President -

I have expressed some of my thoughts on your thoughts.

Do you have any thoughts on my thoughts as exressed here? 

With sincerity and expressed respectfully,

David Tecumseh Schmidt

I think that Obama could have stopped it if he wanted to...!! And, he could have. The bail outs... All I hear is that it is all Bush's fault. Yes, there is a lot that was from him, but Obama can change things if he wants to. Instead he increases the debt!!

The reason those Republicans went back to supporting their own party is because Obama is now doing what he said he wouldn't (follow Bush  doctrine) and they didn't like it when Bush was doing it so why would they like it when Obama does it?

I do agree with you about one thing. It is too early to tell what Obama will do. He has not been in long enough to give him an F. But, I do believe he has been in long enough to do the BIG changes he talked about in his campaign.

One thing I am sure we can all agree on is that WE DON'T AGREE AND NEVER WILL!!!