View Poll Results: New majorities in House and Senate... how they rate?

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Republican, approve of Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Republican, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    24 29.63%
  • Republican, undecided about Congress/Senate

    1 1.23%
  • Democrat, approve of Congress/Senate

    8 9.88%
  • Democrat, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    6 7.41%
  • Democrat, undecided about Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Independent/Other, approve Congress/Senate

    2 2.47%
  • Independent/other, disapprove of Congress/Senate

    27 33.33%
  • Independent/Other, undecided about Congress/Senate

    3 3.70%
  • Other (Will explain in great lengths in the thread)

    4 4.94%
Page 5 of 57 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 854
  1. #61
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    I saw the latest poll said Congressional approval is down to 24%

  2. #62
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    I saw the latest poll said Congressional approval is down to 24%
    What a difference 100 days makes eh? not to worry... Pelosi says she does not care about the poll numbers... now that they have tanked that is. Harry the mouth is nowhere to be found..
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #63
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Here's another one: http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/200...o_hmos_an.html

    14% have "confidence" in Congress!
    Brian

  4. #64
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,761

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    You want to change Congress, Senate, and the White House.

    There is ONLY ONE way. Get rid of all fund raising, lobbyist and be ready to recall anyone that get out of line. Have public forums where they have to answer to the public.

  5. #65
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    The Gilded Capital: Lobbying to riches

    The lobbying community's scramble to hire well-connected Democrats after last fall's power-changing election was so intense it created what some began calling a "Democratic premium" -- a $50,000 add-on to a typical starting salary, which is already $200,000 and rising.

    One lobbying firm even began sweetening its starting salaries of about $225,000 with bonuses ranging from $80,000 to $100,000, depending on how well-wired the recruit is, for run-of-the-mill congressional insiders. Some senior staff members secured salary and bonus packages of $500,000 or more, according to lobbyists familiar with the hiring rush.

    Scott DeFife, a top policy adviser to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), said he was among those to cash in earlier this year, when he secured more than a half-million dollars to lobby for the securities industry.

    When he was on the Hill last year, he said he started getting unsolicited offers to leave that paid less.

    "If I had responded to some of the offers I had in, say, August, September or October of last year, it's definitely a higher salary after the Democrats took over. The numbers aren't even close to each other, so there is a premium," DeFife said.

    While the hiring market has cooled some, the financial opportunities for Democrats, both incumbents and staff, are still bountiful. Several firms are searching for top talent, either from leadership offices or high-value committees, and expecting a late-summer bidding war for any retiring members or leadership aides who decide to go private early. Senior House members even risked a political backlash by killing an ethics reform provision that would have prevented them from lobbying for two years after they leave Capitol Hill, rather than risk tampering with a future change to strike it rich. (They stuck with a one-year ban.)

    The golden path between Capitol Hill and the lobbying community is well-traveled. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay built an entire program aimed at making sure Republicans got first crack at the jobs, a plan that had the added benefit of enriching the partisan donor base.

    Now Democrats have a shot at those posts, which carry fees and salaries that have been on a steep uptick for a decade. In the early 1990s, lobbying shops were able to recruit strong talent for salaries closer to $100,000, veteran lobbyists report. The push above $200,000 came around the century turn, and the Democratic drive is now nudging them toward the $300,000-plus range.

    There are different career tracks for staff and incumbents, and compensation packages vary widely. In addition to the rising base salary, recruits can negotiate year-end bonuses based on performance or the amount of business recruited to the firm. Deferred compensation and stock gifts or options are also common.

    Any package beats a Hill salary. J. David Hoppe was making about $70,000 as chief of staff for then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid when he quit in 2003 to join Quinn Gillespie, where sources say starting base pay is well over $200,000.

    Senior staff members generally begin their lobbying careers inside an existing lobbying shop or a corporate government affairs office, where salaries are about comparable. Being a Democrat with Capitol Hill pedigree isn't enough to land one of the jobs. Lobbyists vet candidates to assess whether they have the kind of contacts that can draw new business and will be comfortable -- and good at -- pitching client needs to their former colleagues.



    After a few years of experience, some are able to break out on their own and start earning really serious money. Retainer fees for general corporate work range from $15,000 to $20,000 a month; for appropriations "earmark" or tax work, the fee can jump to $25,000 or more.

    Steve Elmendorf was earning $148,000 when he left his job in 2003 as former chief of staff to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.). He spent three years lobbying inside Bryan Cave Strategies. After the Democrats took over Congress last year, he started his own shop, Elmendorf Strategies. Disclosure records show he brought with him eight clients who late last year paid his firm $170,000 -- for just one month's work.

    For incumbents, the pivot to lobbying can sometimes be more complicated. But they also tend to have more options.

    A high-profile incumbent often can negotiate a seven-figure deal with a lobbying or law firm hungry to use his name to attract big-name clients. Former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) hired top Washington lawyer-agent Robert Barnett to help him weigh options when he retired from the Senate. Eventually, he landed at the Patton Boggs lobbying firm for a starting salary widely reported to be around $2 million.

    Lobbying insiders are split on whether former members are worth the cost. Some have earned reputations for showing up to close a deal with a client and then leaving the nitty-gritty work to other lobbyists or staff. But others, such as former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), are admired for their willingness to pick up a telephone and make things happen.

    If a lawmaker isn't inclined to lobby his former colleagues, he can try to become head of a major trade association. Pay packages for some of those jobs have been on a swift updraft in recent years.

    In 1995, Robert E. Vagley, head of the American Insurance Association, received about $516,000 in compensation; in 2004, his package was worth $1.7 million, according to a survey by the National Journal. The top job at the American Petroleum Institute jumped from $550,000 in 1995 to $1.3 million in 2004.

    The National Journal survey, released earlier this year and based on a review of tax records and other materials, found that the overall number of millionaire leaders of think tanks, associations and labor unions was 45 two years ago, compared with just 18 in 2000.

    Finally, lawmakers who are so inclined can open their own shop -- and make their own millions.

    Former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) resigned in 1999 amid a sex scandal at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The next year, he opened the Livingston Group. In 2005, the group reported income of $11.4 million. Former Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.) co-founded the Downey McGrath Group in 1993. Its earnings were nearly $2 million last year.

    The really big score, however, comes for people -- examples abound in both parties -- who build firms and then sell them.



    Several veterans of Bill Clinton's political team benefited from the trend. Clinton pollster Mark Penn sold the firm he and college friend Doug Schoen started to WPP, a London-based communications conglomerate. Former White House press secretary Joe Lockhart, along with Al Gore political aides Mike Feldman and Chip Smith, joined with political consultant Carter Eskew to found the Glover Park Group after the Clinton administration ended.

    Later, it grew to include top lobbyists such as Joel Johnson, a Clinton aide and former top Senate aide. At the start of the Bush years, some people wondered how well a Democratic firm could do. The answer: very well. By late last year, the firm -- with clients such as Airbus and Verizon -- had grown to 65 employees and sold itself in a multimillion dollar deal to Svoboda Collins Fund, a Chicago-based private equity firm.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #66
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the world, But they sell pictures of it
    Posts
    6,430

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Bush has finally beat Carter! He has had the lowest approval ratings since Nixon!

    You're doin' a heckava job Georgie!
    The Heat 99-0-0

    Trading Post Rules

    Sound Familiar? "If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."



  7. #67
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Soundforbjt View Post
    Bush has finally beat Carter! He has had the lowest approval ratings since Nixon!

    You're doin' a heckava job Georgie!
    Link? Lets compare... if you think he is doing great.. you must be doing back flips about your buddies in Congress...

    RealClearPolitics Poll Averages

    President Bush Job Approval
    RCP Average 31.1%

    Congressional Job Approval
    RCP Average 25.2%
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #68
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the world, But they sell pictures of it
    Posts
    6,430

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Congress can't do anything with the tiny majority it has right now...though I agree they have'nt tried much either.

    Don't have a link...heard a couple of days ago on a news channel.
    The Heat 99-0-0

    Trading Post Rules

    Sound Familiar? "If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."



  9. #69
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Soundforbjt View Post
    Congress can't do anything with the tiny majority it has right now...though I agree they have'nt tried much either.

    Don't have a link...heard a couple of days ago on a news channel.
    Comon.. that is not entirely true. The seem to excel at granting their districts sweetheart pork funding...... "most ethical..... transparent... "
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #70
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    why is it the dems leadership has a problem with georgie not bowing to the polls yet they dont feel the need to do it either

    pot meet kettle

  11. #71
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by /\/\adGamer View Post
    why is it the dems leadership has a problem with georgie not bowing to the polls yet they dont feel the need to do it either

    pot meet kettle


    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #72
    Joined
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the world, But they sell pictures of it
    Posts
    6,430

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Comon.. that is not entirely true. The seem to excel at granting their districts sweetheart pork funding...... "most ethical..... transparent... "
    And the repubs have been doing it for 14 years...nothing new here. They all say they're against it, but it's soooo easy for them it's like crack to an addict.
    The Heat 99-0-0

    Trading Post Rules

    Sound Familiar? "If we quit Vietnam," President Lyndon Johnson warned, "tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."



  13. #73
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Pork reform: Stick a fork in it

    Pork reform: Stick a fork in it
    By: Winslow T. Wheeler
    June 26, 2007 03:34 PM EST

    It has been great sport watching Congress pretend to reform itself over the "earmarks" (pork) it adds to spending bills. Riding into power on a wave of promised reform, the Democrats imposed new rules that changed almost nothing, and since then, they have gone to considerable lengths to get around their own rules, feeble as they are. The Republicans, whose past accomplishment was to increase pork to unprecedented levels, now gleefully ape reform by badgering the Democrats into observing their own rules.

    Promising "the most ethical Congress ever," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) chose to deliver by requiring spending bills to list and explain earmarks. The new system flunked on its first try. In the House Appropriations Committee's initial spending bill -- legislation to finish the Republicans' undone work for the previous fiscal year -- new Chairman David Obey (Wis.) relieved his colleagues of the trouble of describing their own earmarks by pretending there were none in the bill. Actually, there were over $200 million of them. In the next appropriations bill, to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obey again asserted there were no earmarks; this time there were even more.

    On his third try, Obey took a new tack: When the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, H.R. 2643, was reported by his committee, it truly had no earmarks. Obey explained that they would be inserted into the bill only in its final stages, after the House and Senate had passed their versions, and it was to be sent back to both bodies for final approval. Thus, only when the bill was virtually on its way to the White House would Obey permit the press and quarrelsome members of Congress to see what earmarks the Democratic majority had chosen.

    The Republicans had a field day. Feigning passion for the original Pelosi reforms, and with all the sincerity of a professional wrestler, House Republican leader John A. Boehner (Ohio), imposed legislative gridlock on the Homeland Security bill with piles of Republican amendments and motions to accomplish noble ends, such as changing the grammar in the bill. Once it became clear that the Republicans could do to the Democrats what the Democrats had done to the Republicans in the previous Congress -- hogtie most spending bills to embarrass the party in control -- Obey caved. He agreed to go back to the original plan: to list and explain earmarks in bills -- sort of.

    Just how open and honest the reformed process is can be seen in the new Department of Defense authorization bill that came out of the House Armed Services Committee in May. It did list 449 earmarks -- in small, unreadable print -- costing $7.6 billion, but the list was incomplete. An astute watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, found 53 additional, unlisted earmarks costing $744 million.

    When the Senate Armed Services Committee reported out its different version of the bill, S. 1547, it listed 309 earmarks costing $5.6 billion. When it comes up for debate in the Senate, 200 or more amendments will be introduced. About half of those amendments will be for home-state projects that for some reason the committee did not add during its initial review process.

    During the week or two the Senate will take to consider the bill, there will be debates, some of them interesting, on the great issues of the day: the war in Iraq, nuclear nonproliferation, the worn-out U.S. Army and more. Interspersed through those debates will be strange presentations by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Mich.) and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). They will be reading off procedural motions, calling up amendments and passing them by "unanimous consent"; they will do this time after time, sometimes passing as many as 20 amendments in one sequence. The amendments will not be debated; they may not even be described.

    There's a reason why these items will receive such little scrutiny: They are the pork amendments. The senators pressing them will have "cleared" them with Levin and McCain. Then the amendments will go through the arcane but well-oiled approval process, with utterly no debate -- all in what calls itself the "world's greatest deliberative body."

    This year, there may be some new twists, none of them having the slightest thing to do with the Democrats' reforms. First, it should be fun to watch McCain, the presidential candidate and self-described "pork buster," integrate himself openly into the pork approval process. To avoid painfully obvious hypocrisy, he will surely absent himself, likely conveniently out of town on the campaign trail, and will ask a colleague to stand in for him.

    Still, while McCain in past years has done nothing to impede pork in Armed Services Committee bills, this year he may have an irresistible urge to take action. It turns out that one of the top porkers in the committee's bill is none other than a Democratic presidential rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.). Last year, she jammed 26 earmarks into the bill, costing $47.8 million. Will McCain call out Clinton on her pork, seeking debate and votes? It will be fascinating to watch. If McCain fails to act, it will tell us as much about his character as it would if he does.

    There may yet be some interventions in the congressional pork fest. In the recent past, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has challenged some of the more egregious pork in spending bills. In the Defense authorization bill, he will have a target-rich environment. He may be one of the few senators -- or perhaps the only one -- to oppose any earmarks. However, he does this only intermittently, and his actions are unlikely to be comprehensive.

    McCain or Coburn or any other challenger will almost certainly lose if the matter comes to a vote. Pork is a bipartisan enterprise, and any threat to any member's pork is a threat to all. The Senate's porkers -- the vast majority of both parties -- will surely band together to beat back any threat, as they have many times in the past.

    The Democrats' pork reforms are about as helpful as changing the light bulbs in a bordello. Seen in isolation, the action may seem rational, even needed, but in the larger scheme of things, the illumination does nothing to change the business going on.

    Winslow T. Wheeler spent 31 years working for senators from both political parties and at the General Accounting Office. He is currently the director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #74
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    I must admit I've enjoyed parts of CNN's "keeping them honest' bits where they call in and try to get the weasels on the hill to disclose their earmarks. But then I read stories like this and remember who they are...

    It's the people vs. the government, new poll suggests

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- How do people think the Democratic Congress is doing after six months? Lousy. But better than the alternative.
    Ya... watching the demorat controlled congress approval numbers drop toward single digits really supports that boldface assertion by the author.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #75
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    25,328

    Re: Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

    Not to be confused with the alternative... Funny... the "people" hate this congress more than the one they just voted out...



    Pelosi's support slips in state

    Political power means a lot to some, but in Nancy Pelosi's case it came at a whopping price.

    The Bay Area Democrat's honeymoon as House speaker that started in January is just a distant memory now, despite California's Democratic leanings, a late-June statewide poll reveals.

    Political power means a lot to some, but in Nancy Pelosi's case it came at a whopping price.

    The Bay Area Democrat's honeymoon as House speaker that started in January is just a distant memory now, despite California's Democratic leanings, a late-June statewide poll reveals.

    Pelosi's approval rating since March has plunged 13 percentage points in California, from 52 percent to 39 percent, according to the survey by the San Francisco-based Public Policy Institute of California.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •