jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (46 posts)

Why do Protestants and Mormons Disapprove of President Obama so much?

  1. My Esoteric profile image87
    My Esotericposted 3 years ago

    A recent Gallup poll shows  Protestants and Mormons really Disapprove of how President Obama is doing his job by 58% and 78%, respectively.  Catholics only barely Disapprove with 51% while all other religions and non-religious groups Disapprove at rates that vary from 20% to 41%.

    Why such a polarization?  What does that say about religious beliefs?

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The religious right doesn't approve of the left. Not sure that says anything about religion, in general. I would assume those in the religious right would still be to the right if they changed what they labeled themselves concerning religion.

      I have a sister who thinks she's buddhist but she is still tea party.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Those two views do seem somewhat incompatible, but keep in mind the Disapprove percentages of the non-Protestant religions.  She is clearly one of that group.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image71
      cjhunsingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps they have an understanding of Obama that threatens their values. As an Atheist, I share their distrust and disapproval and would support impeachment. Now, what does that say about an Atheists convictions?

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Only that you, as an individual, are part of the 38% of non-religious/atheists who feel that way.  But the take-away from the poll, is that as a group, Protestants/Mormon, as a group, don't like the way President Obama is doing his job to a much larger degree when compared to the rest of religious orientations.  Why such a dichotomy?

        1. cjhunsinger profile image71
          cjhunsingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          As, I said, perhaps they have a better understanding of who this man is. If you have a some evidence that would point to a more sinister motivation, please inform.

    3. lone77star profile image88
      lone77starposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I used to be a Democrat, but then I realized that both sides of the political spectrum were a sham. The Demopublicans are the same as the Republicrats. There's a different "window dressing," but their core policies -- those which affect the future of the United States the most -- are essentially the same.

      There is only one effective party in the United States -- it's called the Corporate Party. Both "named" parties work for the Corporate Party (Wall Street).

      Obama is merely a puppet of the real power brokers. He has been betraying his oath of office right from the start (treason) by signing legislation that shreds the Constitution. The Supreme Court seems to be bought off, too, allowing unconstitutional laws to be created. Everyone in government seems to be using perverted definitions -- an Orwellian Newspeak and Doublethink, where war is a "peacekeeping action" and similar euphemisms.

      Obama works not for the American voter, but for the same guys who brought us 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- the most expensive and long-running wars in American history. A boon to the Military Industrial complex.

      America is currently a hollow shell of its once great self. It is being gutted slowly, methodically by people with a long view of things. What today's children never knew, they won't miss. Their great grandparents will know that something changed throughout their lives, but they don't have enough knowledge or power to put a stop to it. America's great downfall accelerated in 1913 with the formation of the Rockefeller Foundation, the creation of the private Central Bank (Fed) and the implementation of personal income tax.

      Obama? He's just as much a traitor as Wilson was. Wilson, though, had second thoughts after he left office. He knew he had done something very wrong. Obama, like Bush, was hand-picked because he was predisposed to cheat and lie. Did he close Guantanamo? As commander in chief, he has the power to do so, but he lied. One news commentator pointed out that Obama said of the Gitmo prisoners, they should stay there forever, even if found innocent. If you know anything about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and love those documents, you will really dislike Obama for saying that.

      And that has nothing to do with religion. It's pure treason.

    4. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like they are just more informed than the rest.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image87
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, no. "Informed" and "Mormons" don't typically belong in the same sentence, unless the sentence is "The Mormons were informed that Jesus is an alien and gives out free planets to his followers."

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Don't hate something just because you don't understand it.
          Intolerance from the tolerant left. As usual.

          1. My Esoteric profile image87
            My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            That didn't sound very 'leftist' to me; rather from the other direction.

    5. bethperry profile image91
      bethperryposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I would have to guess they figured out he wasn't the man they thought he was. My Mormon friends all voted for him, and half my Protestant friends did the same (including my Mama who has always been a staunch Dem -but even she says Obama did not keep the promises he made). She still prays for him, though, I know this.

      1. My Esoteric profile image87
        My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        The question is why didn't he keep those promises?  If you still think he is superman, then you may have a point, but if you realize he is just a man subject to and limited by the environment around him, maybe you and your mom will give him a break and some understanding.

        His biggest impediment, which no other President in U.S. history has ever faced after a depression or near depression was a such a pre-planned, hyperpartisan, coordinated six-year attack by the opposition Party to destroy his presidency.  In my opinion, lesser men would have kept none of his promises and let America slip into a depression.

        To me, it is amazing he was able to keep what promises he did make.  If you want to he has done, see http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/What … Years-LOTS

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          You are right, He did keep some of his promises. lol
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpBwmN66As

          Others, Not so much,
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kRHuTzl37g

          Oopsey! Hot mic.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

          But honestly he is one of the hardest working presidents of all time...
          http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=146059,filename=0616meme.jpg

  2. CMerritt profile image76
    CMerrittposted 3 years ago

    Hi Esoteric,

    I saw that 72% of the Muslims approve the work of the POTUS.

    I think that is somewhat telling...

    My opinion is such:

    Principals is a driving force in the basic foundation of conservative values.  One being that we ALL were endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I think we take this more serious than the liberal ideology.  It all stems from that, for the most part.

    This being a long story short of course.....

    In my opinion

    1. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      That sort of surprised me as well, given most people, including me, think of Muslims as being more conservative than conservatives.  But given most conservative Protestants don't mind letting Muslims know they are hated, as a group, it is no wonder they chose the way they did.  I even have to set back and take a breath to realize most Muslims in the world aren't like the radical Sunnis and Shi'ite that make the news all the time.

      BTW, the largest Muslim nation in the world is quite moderate, that would be Indonesia.  While they do have a small radical faction there, it is pretty well suppressed.

      1. lone77star profile image88
        lone77starposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        True religion is Love. This is what Christ said. So, Protestants are not following Christ, if they hate Muslims.

        And why hate Muslims? 9/11 was an inside job -- a false flag operation by some unnamed group within the govern-corporate hegemony. Muslims were the patsies. Some of the 19 were trained at US military bases. High ranking FBI officials stopped lower-ranking agents from interfering with the future hijackers, because someone needed the patsies to be in position on the fateful day. Was it a beautiful coincidence that the US military was on one of its highest levels of jet fighter training drills and unable to respond to any threats? How lucky for the supposed hijackers. And the high ranking military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 all received promotions instead of courts martial. How nice. Rewarding incompetence seems to be a new craze. Or was it incompetence? Giuliani got away with a major felony -- destruction of crime scene evidence when he ordered the 9/11 site cleanup started on the evening of that fateful day -- more than a year before the official investigation even started. And NIST (government) scientists committed scientific fraud when they tried to convince the world that solid steel could ever, under any circumstances, offer zero resistance as they seem to claim it did with the perfect free fall collapse of WTC7 at 5:20pm on the same day.

        Not only did Muslims not do 9/11, but there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Did America say "Oops, sorry?" Did they leave immediately? No. In fact, they're still there. Iraq is now a vassal state of America. The Corporate Party is glutted with cash from murder and mayhem. They don't care about the individual. Neither does Obama. He's just a paid flunky of the Rockefellers and their ilk.

        Look up the Aaron Russo interview just before his death. In it he tells of the Rockefeller knowledge of some "big event" about to happen which would give them Iraq and Afghanistan. This was a year before 9/11. So, what was the big event talked about?

        The world is being run by egoists who think they are gods. They hire people like Kurzweil to help usher in a Brave New World of Borg-like beings -- half machine, half human. Obama is merely the front man to keep us entertained while they dismantle the Constitution and keep us distracted with the unending War on Terror.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image87
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          I thought the official story was that we were getting lizard people and mole men?

        2. Quilligrapher profile image92
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Good evening, Lone77star. I have not seen your unproven 9/11 conspiracy theories in ages. Perhaps I was simply not paying attention.

          Not one 9/11 conspiracy theory has ever proven itself valid. They have all been debunked and all you have to show after 13 years is a heap of unanswered questions. Which is just fine until you begin to imagine they prove something. Unanswered questions, as you know, are an admission you have no evidence and they are nothing but a ploy to raise suspicion and distrust in the absence of verifiable facts. 

          “Muslims were the patsies. Some of the 19 were trained at US military bases.”

          Oh no! Not this one again! The words “were trained” are only found on conspiracy web sites. Newsweek and the Washington Post, along with a half dozen other early sources published only four days after 9/11, are cited to corroborate this speculation. However, not one source said, “were trained.” In fact, all said at the time, “may have trained.” Later, a thorough investigation created significant doubts when they uncovered variations in the spelling of names and discrepancies in biographical data such as some birth dates being off by as much as 20 years. In the end, NO connections to the hijackers were ever established. Nevertheless, you continue to say the hijackers “were trained” and you continue to ignore the results of all the investigations.   {1}

          Here is another repeated lie that is a favorite of yours although you know it is false:

          “Giuliani got away with a major felony -- destruction of crime scene evidence when he ordered the 9/11 site cleanup started on the evening of that fateful day -- more than a year before the official investigation even started."

          While I grant you all of your wild and unfounded conclusions, this portion of your post proves a willingness to slander the reputation of an honorable man with an accusation that you know to be false. It is a lie and you have known this to be untrue for many months.{2}

          Crime scene evidence was not destroyed and you know this already. Mayor Giuliani did not order removal of debris from ground zero. You know this too but you keep repeating the lies.

          “It was determined by the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of NY; Barry Mawn FBI ADlC of the NY Division; and other officials that the rubble and debris from the entire WTC complex would be removed from Ground Zero and sorted for evidence, personal effects, and human remains.” {3}

          Hypocracy abounds within your post. "True religion is Love. This is what Christ said. "

          I wonder when a man that wears his Christian principles on his sleeve will start to take responsibility for his own lies. Repeating the same false accusations seems to condone calumny in the pursuit of unsubstantiated theories.

          “The FBI's primary role at both Ground Zero and Fresh Kills was to search for evidence of the terrorist acts. The FBI was searching for the black boxes from the two planes, and any evidence from the hijackers, such as weapons, box cutters, identification, cellular telephones, and palm pilots. The FBI also played a humanitarian role in helping the City of NY to identify victims, and to recover human remains and personal effects.” {4}

          The examination and the sorting of Ground Zero material at the Fresh Kills site continued for eleven months and became “the biggest crime scene in history” involving over 400 members of the FBI. 

          “During the eleven months that the Fresh Kills site was operating, approximately 1.8 million tons of debris was sent from Ground Zero. Eight-member FBI ERTs [Ed.: Evidence Response Teams] were sent to Fresh Kills on two-week deployments to help sift and inspect the rubble. ERTs from 55 of the 56 FBI Field Offices participated. Some offices deployed more than one team (depending on office size), and other offices deployed teams more than once. Over 400 FBI employees were deployed to Fresh Kills during its operation. Marx is quoted in a January 15, 2002, Associated Press article stating that Fresh Kills was ‘the biggest crime scene in history.’” [Edited for clarity and emphasis.] {5}

          You are clearly welcome to believe, “someone needed the patsies [9/11 terrorists] to be in position on the fateful day.”  I guess, eventually, you will come to realize how claims like this undermine your incredible theories with a rational audience. 

          You have yet to learn that no one knows the exact collapse events in any of the WTC buildings. Not me, not you, not any of your conspiracy colleagues.

          "NIST (government) scientists committed scientific fraud when they tried to convince the world that solid steel could ever, under any circumstances, offer zero resistance as they seem to claim it did with the perfect free fall collapse of WTC7 at 5:20pm on the same day." Clearly, you did not interview the fire fighters that were ordered to evacuate WTC7 in the early afternoon. Their reports of the building listing toward the south are an obvious indication the beams were under extreme lateral forces from an unbalanced load.

          A perfect free fall collapse of WTC7 did not occur! Video of the collapse shows the seriously damaged southeast corner of the building buckled, and as it fell, it pulled the rest of the structure down with it. (Watch the water tower on the southeast corner of the roof collapse first) {6}

          Unfortunately, LoneStar, your uncertain theories are designed to slander government officials. They rely on hypothetical conjecture to presume hundreds of your fellow Americans, including the Mayor, NYC firefighters, policemen, journalists, and eyewitnesses, are all members of a colossal conspiracy to cover up the mass murder of thousands of other Americans. It puts you in a group that does not believe such serious charges demand levels of certainty that go beyond the norm. “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof," Sadly, you have none.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.911myths.com/html/trained.html
          {2}  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2470417.
          {3} http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0403a/
          {4} Ibid.
          {5} Ibid.
          {6} http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/117041#post2469139

      2. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Again, you are reading too much negative into poll results. Approval ratings are determined as much by perception as policy. Considering the amount of time the far right has spent attempting to paint Obama as a Muslim, I would think that would bear some weight in how someone who considers themselves Muslim might look at the current president, and how much leeway they might be willing to give him before they succumbed to the perception of negative.

        I work with people of many ethnic groups. O'bama is well liked by blacks here. They all attend conservative protestant churches. Why do you think they might look on the president favorably?

        Politicians play to certain groups and attempt to be accepted as one of those groups, continuously. Because they know that acceptance as one of that group assures support. I supported the president when he first campaigned for office because I saw him as more closely aligned with my way of thinking than the opposition. I saw him as closer to the mind of the general population. I don't support him now because policy has shown that I was grossly mistaken. My lack of support has nothing to do with religion, sex, ethnicity or anything else. He first appeared to have a great interest in being representative of the people and he has proven himself not to be.

        And, please, tell us where we can go to verify your claim that most Protestants go out of their way to make sure Muslims know they hate them, as a group. Such inflammatory statements should be left in the prejudice corner of your own mind.

        Your perception does not a reality make. How do you think that assumption would affect the opinion of a moderate muslim living in the United States. Do you think that planting a seed of insecurity, through making unsupported statements, is fair to another citizen?

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          It doesn't really make much difference what "most" conservative Protestants actually think, emphasis on "conservative", it is the perception.  The perception is drawn from 13 years of America suffering through listening to, reading, or watching hate-mongering propaganda or news stories against anything Muslim put out by the Right-side of the political and religious spectrum or about their activity.  You are right, that is perception, a widely-held one.  What isn't perfection is that the vast majority of the Right is made of conservative, white Protestants; a majority (not vast) of those being male.

          Again, you are right, perception doesn't make reality, but if the perception is held by enough people, then it substitutes for it.

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "One being that we ALL were endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

      Tell me please, by your creator do you mean Thomas Jefferson? This to me is a perfect example of how politics and religion can intertwined if we don't keep them separate.

      1. CMerritt profile image76
        CMerrittposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely not.  By Creator, I mean, GOD. 

        Why is this a hard concept to grab?  Thomas Jefferson knew EXACTLY who he meant.  ALL of our signers knew EXACTLY who they meant.  They MEANT CREATOR.....GOD.

        You need to recalculate what they meant........it is really pretty simple.

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          T, Jefferson, with the help of B Franklin, purposefully used the more general term Creator, rather than God just as Jefferson allowed Franklin to purposefully tone down the religious connotation of "we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable" to "we hold these truths to be self-evident".

          While Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and many others did believe in Christian version of God (something different than the Universe), many also did not accept the teachings of Christianity.  Jefferson in particular rejected Christianity teachings about God and Jesus.  He rejected in their entirety that Jesus was God and in the miracles of Jesus; he was extremely critical of Christian clergy and what they they preached.

          Adams, on the other hand, was a firm believer in Christianity and all its teaching, but was extremely wary of letting its influence work its wiles on the Federal government; in other words a very strong supporter of separation of church and state.  Thomas Paine, one the prime catalysts to rally the People for the Revolution was basically an atheist, or at least an agnostic.

          While it is a given to conservatives that God is the source of inalienable rights, liberals follow Locke and Hobbes' paradigm that those rights derive from Nature, which, in Christianity, in not God..

          All understood people believe in different ways.

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Please refer me to the sections of the bible that says God think we should have the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

          Right from the very beginning it's says our lives are going to be miserable and a little further into it he tells slaves to obey their masters even when the master can't be seen.

  3. demonfort007 profile image76
    demonfort007posted 3 years ago

    The real question is how can any Christian approve of him? How can any person actually approve of him and the mass destruction he has caused and continues to do so?

    1. My Esoteric profile image87
      My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Such as regain all of the jobs the previous President lost?

      Such as return to normal economic growth patterns (yes, 1.5 - 2% is the norm)?

      Such as return the unemployment rate back down to 6.1% (a little above the historical norm) in spite of an opposition Party dedicated to keeping it in double digits?

      Such as not going to war with Russia of the Crimea?

      Such as preventing a depression?

      Such as advancing the civil rights of gays in the Army?

      The list goes on and on.

      Is THAT the mass destruction you are talking about?

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        All administrations fudge the numbers, in order to look good. We, the people, aren't so easily snookered (most of us anyway). The unemployment rate looks good, because they are not including all of the unemployed. Try 23%.

        Obama, nor any president, has anything to do with most job creation in the private sector. Although we can thank him for a burgeoning federal workforce which, incidently, those employed will have to pay for.

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Or you could say it is 41% (1-Employed/Civilian non-Institutional Population).  Your number probably has something to do with "# Not In Labor Force" and "Discouraged Workers" or "Stopped Looking but may work if asked". 

          The problem with your number is you can never tell what percentage of those not looking for work actually want to work if offered a job relative to those who fall in the "unemployed" category.  There is an army of students, house wives, house husbands, retired folk, non-institutionalized disabled folks, etc  who simply do not want to work, period.  And you never know for sure how many are in that category at any point in time as opposed to the other two I mentioned.

          That is why BLS uses the unemployment rate it does; it measures pretty consistently over time.  To be honest, it isn't the number itself, but the trend in the number and where the number stands compared to history.  The same would be true of your number if it were stable enough to use.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image92
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Greetings, Ms. R.

          I can not tell from your post if you place yourself among the snookered or the un-snookered. smile However, it does appear that the sources telling you President Obama is responsible  “for a burgeoning federal workforce” were among the snookered.

          The Historical Federal Workforce Tables published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reveals that civilians employed by the Executive branch rose from 2,692,000 in 2008 to 2,697,000 in 2012. My abacus calculates the federal workforce, excluding military, legislative, and judicial branches, grew by 5,000 or 0.19% over 4 years. Now shall we consider this a burgeoning of federal workers or should we examine the previous administration? During 2001 through 2008, the workforce grew by 53,000 or 2.0% and that is after layoffs of temporary census workers.{1}

          Goodness, Emile, should we bash President Bush more than President Obama for a burgeoning workforce? Well…not exactly.

          It seems in September, 2013, before the Tea Party wing of the GOP shut down the government, President Obama had hammered the number of civilian government employees down to the lowest figure seen since the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. {2}

          Well, Emile, it sure would be interesting to learn how you arrived at the conclusion President Obama was the cause “for a burgeoning federal workforce.”

          Is it possible that both of us have been snookered? big_smile
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh … ince-1962/
          {2} http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/ … s&_r=0

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            This may be simply an example of different sources offering a different look at the overall picture. I do, honestly, believe our government is so over bloated that it is difficult to obtain an honest answer to many questions and our inability to obtain those answers works in the best interest of both parties. I do promise that I will investigate.

            This is somewhat like the question of inflation. Numbers get juggled and we are told inflation is low. I find that difficult to swallow simply because on the commodities that most affect the lives of the middle and lower classes in this area, inflation is rampant. And if you look at that core group of commodities this has been true consistently through many administrations.

            1. My Esoteric profile image87
              My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              I can tell you first hand that at least in my world in the Air Force and my wife's world in the Department of Agriculture the downsizing that started in the 1990s and continued thereafter had devastating effects on our ability to deliver the kind of service our citizens expected of us.  It cost the taxpayer many times the money saved from lower personnel costs in 1) higher contractor costs to pick up the workload that didn't go away, 2) more contractor fraud because of less oversight, 3) more waste because of less oversight, 4) less productivity because of fewer people wearing more hats, and 5) less efficiency due to much lower morale hearing the public you serve hates you for serving them.

              My office's function was to monitor the cost proposals of contractors building our most expensive weapon systems; our client was the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Procurement.  By 2000 we were beginning to tell him NO when asked to review certain cost proposals because we no longer had the manpower to do it and what we did have was devoted to higher priority projects.  By 2008, when I retired, we were still telling him no.

              My wife's FL Rural Development office in the Dept of Agriculture is staffed at 50% of what they need to perform the assigned mission.  And, at the State hq, for each persons responsibility, they get paid crap compared to their private counterparts.

              So, when people complain to me that the federal gov't is bloated, I know they haven't a clue as to what they are talking about and are just repeating bumper stickers.

              As to your commodity argument, list a few and let's take a look.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                It probably varies widely.  My son worked at both a VA hospital and now at the Bureau of Reclamation.  Both places, according to him, were grossly overstaffed.  In his opinion, staffing could be cut by something over 20% at the Bureau and, excluding doctors, a similar figure at the hospital.  Doctors were in very short supply and they didn't have enough - not surprising as few doctors will work for what the VA pays.

                My own very limited experience from long ago was the same; it took a crew of 4 govt. workers to do the same job I did all day long, plus I had to correct their mistakes.

                In general, gov. jobs are considered "plum" jobs for a reason, and it isn't hard work.  When whole private industries spring up to help you get one of those (maybe in the postal service?) it says something.

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Gov't jobs were considered "plum" (btw, my experience is limited to federal, not state and local, and primarily DoD with my wife in Ag) because of the inability of bosses to fire you on a whim.  Statistics show that for GS-1 through GS-9, the public sector does a little better in pay and benefits, for GS-10 - 13, it is about the same, and from GS-14 up, the public sector sucks when compared to the private sector when comparing pay and benefits.

                  All large organizations have their bad spots, for DoD in the Pentagon, it was the Pentagon Admin Office.  I have a hard time believing, given the current news anyway, that the VA had an overstaffing problem among even the non-medical staff.  I also won't argue with you that during the boom Reagan years there was plenty of slack in the federal workforce (and no oversight in DoD anyway), but that disappeared with VP Gore.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL  My personal experience was state, not feds, and 40 years ago.  But I DO know there are still outfits out there will try to get you a postal job, even as the post office is cutting workers.  Whether it is still "plum" or not, someone thinks it is, or those outfits would go under in short order.

                    I'd have to pretty much agree with you on the wages, although bennies for the federal are considerably above what private sector offers.  Which puts your GS figures perhaps skewed a little, but not too much.  I agree that at the top, private business far out-compensates the govt, but at the lower end (and most of the middle) govt. outdoes private companies by quite a bit (including bennies).

              2. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                I spent fifteen years of my life working within the government so......I do have a clue. Sorry to disappoint.

                As to commodities....gas, for one. I remember when gas started rising we were lucky to retain our jobs. Went three years without a raise and no bonuses either. Even when they started back up it didn't match that hike. I remember when the price of canned vegetables doubled. They haven't come down. At that time, you could buy our coffee at $4.99 a can, on sale. Now sale price is $10 and the regular price is $12.99. The list does go on. My point is that you can certainly look across the board and pretend that costs aren't rising and, across the board, maybe they don't but, the price of things that affect the average American in this area has risen. A simple comparison over the years shows that the price of many commodities has risen at about an 18% rate.

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  OK, we have a list of reasonable items.  What time periods are you talking about?  CPI 2004-2006 varied between 1.5% and 5% (not good); from 2007-2012 (recession period) 5.75% to -2% (terrible); since 2012 1% - 2% (OK).  Take out food and energy then CPI varies between 0.75% and 3% for whole period.

                  Who did you work for?

                  1. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                    I was in the Air Force and, I can assure you, waste was rampant. We, of course, insisted it wasn't and we didn't have enough personnel to do the job. That we did more with less than it took the civilian side. So, forgive me if I raise an eyebrow at your comments on what negative effect the downsizing had. Interestingly enough, the business we are in now works hand in hand with the Department of Agriculture. They do a great job, have high morale and the only complaints I've heard are that the interview process takes so long applicants are usually employed elsewhere by the time an offer is made.

                    I forgot to comment on the price of bread. It went from .99 per loaf to $2.99. Rather quickly.It's $3.29 now. All of that in less than six years.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image92
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Good evening, Ms. R.

              Your statements are truly intriguing because they are so contrary to reality. Please do not reject data just because they are hard to swallow. The links provided give you yearly data on government workers. Historically, the government’s civilian workforce, excluding the military, the legislative and the judiciary branches, grew from 1966 until about 1990 and then steadily, although unevenly, declined until 2013 when it reach the lowest level since 1966. Of course, you are welcome to believe the government workforce is still bloated but there are no sources to support your conclusion that a burgeoning federal workforce has occurred under the current administration.

              Inflation numbers, by the way, do not get “juggled.” They are misrepresented by some people at times, which is why each of us has to go to the source if we want to know the real facts.

              In your words: “This is somewhat like the question of inflation. Numbers get juggled and we are told inflation is low. I find that difficult to swallow simply because on the commodities that most affect the lives of the middle and lower classes in this area, inflation is rampant. And if you look at that core group of commodities this has been true consistently through many administrations.”

              Inflation is not rampant in this country right now. While you speak of inflation, I think you may really mean the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that measures what Americans pay for goods and services. Here there is nothing to suggest inflation is running rampant. The Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): US city average for all items reported shows an encouraging 1.5% increase in 2013. {1}

              Look back every previous years and 1.5% is the lowest annual increase in fifty years except for 2008 ( -0.4%). The first five months of this year have seen the CPI increase 2.1% for all items since May 2013, while food for eating at home rose to 2.7% over a year. In spite of this year’s climb, the CPI increase nation wide is still at a historical low.

              No fair, Emile. smile It seems you are trying to stack the deck with the following statement:
              "A simple comparison over the years shows that the price of many commodities has risen at about an 18% rate."

              I would love to see your list of “many commodities” that have risen at a rate of 18% in any year. You will find the data you need here {2}. The data indicate average prices in all US cities has risen 15.6% in total from 2006 through 2013 and this has been at historically low annual rates. Anyone can draw a simple comparison by hand picking the commodities that have risen and, at the same time, ignore all the commodities that have declined. You mentioned gasoline prices rising, for example, but do not forget that they are still below the $4.114/gal peak in July 2008. {3}

              Your statements about “our coffee” are mystifying: "You could buy our coffee at $4.99 a can, on sale. Now sale price is $10 and the regular price is $12.99.”  If “my coffee” went up 200%, I would consider changing “my” brand. Prices for Coffee Futures have actually declined a remarkable 46% since March 2011. {4}

              On the other hand, retail coffee prices have responded with a decline of 15% since Nov. 2012 alone. {5}

              With all due respect for your personal perceptions about burgeoning federal workers, rampant inflation and run-away prices, I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding their accuracy. Of course, do not hesitate to point out errors in the data linked or supply your own data if you have any.

              I hope you have a wonderful evening, Emile. I appreciate your many contributions in this forum. I thank you for your cordial and ever pleasant participation.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1405.pdf  Table 24.
              {2} Ibid. Table 26. P. 81.
              {3} http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHa … pg&f=m
              {4}
              http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/coffee.aspx?timeframe=6y
              {5} http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU00007 … ol=XGtable

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                I apologize, but I take real life data as more of an accurate indication of what is going on than government offerings of data. Inflation matters where it affects one's life, so yes the CPI is, in my mind, the best indication of what the true inflation rate is.

                Simple fact. When I purchased my car it cost $30 to fill it up. Now, I spend over $60. As a comparison shopper I've found that even with working the sales, shopping them diligently across stores from three major chains and (aside from a few select items) purchasing by price comparison the grocery bill for a household of two has doubled.

                My son has rented an apartment for three years. The complex has raised rent, at every yearly lease renewal, by ten percent. We, as have everyone in this area, saw our home values plummet, but no reduction has been seen by anyone in rental costs.

                So. We can certainly pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (there is no real man. It's just a saying. I don't think Obama is better or worse that any other politician who has worn those shoes) but the average American has seen a steady decrease in the purchasing power of their income. Call it inflation, CPI, karma or life. It's real and I see no end in sight.

                The truth is, I don't blame the government for anything other than attempting to convince the public that something isn't currently rotten in Denmark. And, has been rotten for some time. We, the people, have ceased to be their primary concern.

                1. My Esoteric profile image87
                  My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I can't really argue with what you experience on a day to day basis, because that is what you personally (and those you know around you) see.  For better or worse, I am one of those guys behind the curtain, although in an entirely different, but nevertheless related area, it was still my job to try to make sense of data over long periods of time that jumped around all over the place.  In my case, one question I attempted to answer was what it cost, given a certain set of variables (which I also had to figure out) what it cost to operate an Air Force base, minus the aircraft. 

                  For another set of Hubs, I get the same pushback from pro-gun types who want to use, not necessarily personal experience, but local anecdotal examples to make generalized national conclusions which contradict what the larger set of data applied across states, shows.

                  The reason I asked for time frame in your case was to pinpoint when you experienced the cost growth, especially in food and fuel.  You should have seen little from 2012 - 2014 but lots from 2007 to 2012.  I got caught on the housing/rent thing from both ends; but different from you.  The bubble price of two townhomes I had in a suburb south of D.C. was just shy of $400K each.  By the time the bubble finished bursting, they were down to around $180K each.  If you were inclined to shed a tear, please don't; their TRUE value should have been only around $250K, which is about what they are now.  I rented these homes for the going rate of around $1,400, but had to drop the rent on one to $1,300 in order to rent it again when the tenant left.  As to fuel, depending on year and state, in the last say five years, I have spent as much as $80 to fill up and as little as $60; right now it is about $65.  So, individual experiences differ.  What the guys behind the curtain try to do is average them out.

                  You can, by the way, find CPIs for your major metropolitan area, or region if you don't live near one, that may tell a different story than the national numbers.

      2. cjhunsinger profile image71
        cjhunsingerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        My Esoteric
        You seem to have a perspective that is somewhat limited or perhaps, skewed.
        Good economic growth should be between 3.8 and 5.O%, not 1.5%. This was evidenced under Reagan and Clinton.
        Your unemployment number has no value, as between 75 and 80 million people are out of the workforce. This is substantiated by the fact that almost 50 million american are on food stamps, and according the the Census Bureau over 100 million are on some form of substance, with 11 million on disability.
        As for Russia, we have a Treaty with the Ukraine called the Budapest Memorandum, initiated by Obama, as a Senator in 1994 to protect the Ukraine from invasion if it gave up its weapons. They gave up their weapons. Deceit provides the bull-work of Obama's foreign policy. Perhaps, we did not stop Russia because we were complicit in the attack on the Ukraine.

        The world is in an absolute state of chaos, America is being demoralized and bankrupted and that this is the 'Transformation"  promised is of no question.
        Sadly, in all other areas the President of the United States is an evidenced liar.
        That Obama is moving this country to a Marxist socialist state is of no question. That he has effectively erased our sovereignty and stature in the world is of no question, That he is violating the Constitution is of no question, as is evidence by Supreme Court decisions, a reading of the Constitution and common sense.
        Obama is operating under the UN Charter and the UN Dec on human rights and this is evidenced, among other things by what is happening on our border.

        The sad part in all this is the greed motivated gullibility on  the part of the American people in that they think that they can get something for nothing. When the President of the United States can stand before the American and tell them that "they can  keep their doctor" for three years, knowing that it is a lie, is an in-depth insight into who and what this man is and what he is all about.

        Obama however, is not that smart. this destruction of America, most assuredly, is a bi-partisan effort, as such could not happen and we could not be here if it were not.
        Without America the world will resurrect the Dark Ages, as the government becomes the national religion, omnipotent.

        Please show me where I am wrong. I would very much like to be.

        1. My Esoteric profile image87
          My Esotericposted 3 years agoin reply to this

          Let's see, Reagan-Clinton was 1980-2000, roughly.  I can calculate it myself for exactly that period if you want, but I will give you these from Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century": The average annual per capita GDP economic growth for various periods in that timeframe were:
          1970 - 1990: 1.6%
          1990 - 2012: 1.5%
          1980 - 2012: 1.3%
          1950 - 1980: 2.0%

          Now did individual quarters in the period you are talking about reach such high rates, certainly they did, 'but they were far from the norm.'

          Do you equate being on food stamps and subsistence to being unemployed?

          Measuring unemployment in numbers rather than percentages has no meaning in terms of relevant analysis; it is only good for hyperbole.

          Senators do not "initiate" treaties, instead they give "advise and consent". Initiating treaties is in the sole purview of the executive branch, who, if I am not mistaken, was President Clinton at the time: Obama was not in any elected office in 1994, so pick on someone else.

          Your facts are wrong on the above and on the rest, you appear to be simply delusional or you listen to Rush Limbaugh too much as well as grasping at straws.

  4. BeverlyHollinhead profile image83
    BeverlyHollinheadposted 3 years ago

    I think the polarization has a lot to do with the people in various religious affiliations level of commitment (for lack of better word) to their religion and its particular beliefs, especially in moral department and their perceptions of the intent of the President.

    Historically, the Catholic religion has been one of the strictest. However, with each subsequent split and branch off of it, it has become less so. This changes how people perceive and react to the religion and outside influences. I have a Bachelor's degree in history, and used to, when somebody said Catholic Church or Catholicism, the image of Medieval monks chanting Gregorian chants is what came to mind. However, since Pope Francis took over and has started changing the face of Roman Catholicism, every time so I hear those same words, he's the first image that comes to mind. I used this example to show that the times a person lives in really affects how they perceive things within or without the religious framework. I think the majority of Catholics don't disprove of Obama as much as the other religions do because of the changes the religion has gone through in its long history and more currently, the changes enacted by the new Pope. However, in every religion, you are going to have your die hard followers. The thing that comes to mind the most with this is the big protest that many Catholic hospitals and other things of that nature raised run by nuns, priests, and other clergy members when the government tried to force every medical institution to provide contraceptive means. To your die hard moral followers, they perceived this decree (for lack of better word) as a direct attack on their moral responsibility to keep sex out of everywhere but the confines of a legal, God-sanctioned marriage. To be willing to shut down a hospital that services thousands upon thousands of people who don't have any other means of getting medical help in order to stay true to your faith says a lot about your devotion to your chosen religion.

    Similarly to the devout Catholic followers, Protestants and Mormons are also extremely reactive to perceived attacks on their religion. The Protestants and Mormons have, in some instances, replaced the Catholics in the strictness department. Most of the time, the Protestants are more conservative than the Catholics have become, but the Mormons are even more conservative than most Protestants. (There's exceptions to every generalization). Many of President Obama's  recent policies, such as gay rights, are extremely offensive to Protestants and even moreso Mormans. For these groups of people, this offensiveness turns into attacking the moral foundations in which they believe this nation was founded on.

    As far as for what it says about religious beliefs, it really depends which specific religion being put in the spotlight. A lot of your Eastern religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc) don't have the same moral requirements that the Western ones do. Overall, the Eastern religions are more concerned about doing the best for the community they live in. So they are going to look more at the how much it helps people factors. The Western religions, on the other hand, are going to look at the moral factors that they perceive the government is repeatedly trampling on.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image87
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Facts and evidence are tools of the Zionists to brainwash you! Only unsubstantiated rumors and wild accusations are real!

 
working