Gallup: 57 Percent of Americans Say Gov't Is Trying to Do Too Many Things

Nick Gillespie | September 21, 2009

From a new Gallup survey:

Americans are more likely today than in the recent past to believe that government is taking on too much responsibility for solving the nation's problems and is over-regulating business. New Gallup data show that 57% of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals, and 45% say there is too much government regulation of business. Both reflect the highest such readings in more than a decade.

And there's this: "27% say the amount of regulation is about right and 24% say there is too little regulation."

More, including charts and methodology, here.

Hat tip: Byron York at the Washington Examiner.

Comments

Tomcat1066|9.21.09 @ 8:37AM|#

In a completely unrelated survey, it was found that 57% of Americans are racist!!!!!

Chronically Constipated|9.21.09 @ 8:37AM|#

24% say there is too little regulation

I'd agree with that.

jester|9.21.09 @ 8:43AM|#

I don't believe it. There are way too many dipshits out there for such to be true.

jester|9.21.09 @ 8:48AM|#

Okay somehow Bush became President and somehow Obama became President after him. Some people were excited about Hillary Clinton. Wow. Amazing...There are way too many dipshits...

|9.21.09 @ 8:59AM|#

Cool. What do we win?

Racism!

Question Authority|9.21.09 @ 9:01AM|#

If a pollster confronted me with "Some people think A. Some people think B. Which comes closer to your views?" I would have to say "I guess "Neither' because in my view: yes, some people think A and some people think B."

|9.21.09 @ 9:12AM|#

The Dems are going to get killed in 2010. I think Obama is starting to realize this. When it happens I don't think he will go centerist the way Clinton did. I think Obama will be angry and bitter about the rejection. He is going to try to get healthcare and cap and theft done before he loses his majority and then veto and filabuster any attempts to change it. Knowing he is done in 2012, he will attempt to get as much done on the far left as possible and then just hold ground. He will leave as a more unpopular President at large than Bush, but he will be a hero to the Left.

Tricky Prickears|9.21.09 @ 9:12AM|#

Americans are more likely today than in the recent past to believe that government is taking on too much responsibility for solving the nation's problems

So, how many Americans feel that Americans are not taking enough responsibility? How many "teabaggers" have checking accounts with BoA, Wells etc.? Forget teabaggers, just Americans in general. How many Americans actually know where their retirement accounts are being invested? How many care, as long as the returns are safe, and high.

If the government is taking on too much responsibility trying to stabilize a fucked up economy, because they were trying to stabilize a good economy, then chances are, Americans are not taking on enough responsibility, not just with their liabilities, but their assets as well.

|9.21.09 @ 9:30AM|#

New Gallup data show that 57% of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals.

Wow. 57%? That's it? You really have to shovel a lot of shit under the nose of an American before they even start to get a whiff.

|9.21.09 @ 9:48AM|#

I personally am surprised it was 57%. I would expect less simply based on how little the average person seems to pay attention, and how stupid most are. That is addition to how little of the news is actually reported without clear bias.

Robert|9.21.09 @ 10:47AM|#

If a pollster confronted me with "Some people think A. Some people think B. Which comes closer to your views?" I would have to say "I guess "Neither' because in my view: yes, some people think A and some people think B."

Then you'd just be a wise guy. It's obvious what the question means. Or were you making fun of wise guys?

|9.21.09 @ 11:03AM|#

100% say that the things that the Government is doing that effects other people's lives is OK. It's only the things that negatively effect their lives that they take issue with.

Question Authority|9.21.09 @ 11:19AM|#

It's obvious what the question means. Or were you making fun of wise guys?

I'm pointing out how the poor phrasing of many survey questions inherently leads to distorted or even meaningless results.

Warty|9.21.09 @ 11:25AM|#

Question Authority

Why?

Question Authority |9.21.09 @ 11:36AM|#

Why?

Wise guy.

T|9.21.09 @ 11:39AM|#

I'm pointing out how the poor phrasing of many survey questions inherently leads to distorted or even meaningless results.

You're right to be suspicious of polls, but don't assume the questions are poorly designed. The questions may be designed to elicit the results somebody wants.

Question Authority|9.21.09 @ 11:56AM|#

The questions may be designed to elicit the results somebody wants.

As I said, distorted results.

JB|9.21.09 @ 12:20PM|#

The more the government takes on, the less effective and efficient it will be.

Jack of all trades, master of none. The government stands a better chance of doing 5 things well than 500.

This is a point that is rarely if ever made in the media so I suggest reason hammer this one home. I suggested this general idea is one Stossel should cover on FOX.

Geotpf|9.21.09 @ 12:43PM|#

John | September 21, 2009, 9:12am | #

The Dems are going to get killed in 2010. I think Obama is starting to realize this.

Maybe, maybe not. The most important factor will be the unemployment rate on the day of the election. The normal business cycle seems to indicate that unemployment will be dropping, possibly significantly, by November, 2010. If so, Obama and the Congressional Democrats can (rightly or wrongly) say the stimulous worked, helping them in the election.

Now, if unemployment is still high by November 2010, you are probably correct. But I'm guessing that won't be the case.

Even if unemployment is low, I wouldn't expect significant gains for the Democrats. They've already picked off all the low-hanging fruit (swing districts), and the party in the White House traditionally loses seats in mid-term elections. But they might get status quo or even a minor gain in the House, with a few seat gain (around 3) in the Senate.

Geotpf|9.21.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Oh, and there's approximately a zero percent chance that Obama loses in 2012, no matter what the results of the 2010 election is. The Republicans simply don't have a good candidate. None of the top twenty possible Republican candidates can overcome the five point incumbent advantage. Heck, most, if not all of them couldn't win against Obama in the first place (that is, discounting the incumbency advantage)-I think Obama would have won in 2008 no matter who won the Republican primary.

Obama will probably win by approximately 12 percentage points in 2012 (the 7 by which he won last time plus 5 for incumbency), which should give him about 40 states.

T|9.21.09 @ 2:25PM|#

The Republicans simply don't have a good candidate.

Three years before the election Obama wasn't considered a good candidate. It's way too early to make predictions.

Joshua Holmes|9.21.09 @ 3:53PM|#

How much would you wager that the 57% includes a huge chunk of "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" folks?

Medic001|9.21.09 @ 4:22PM|#

"Tricky Prickears :"This "tea Bagger" wants

That's ok....39.6% of the dip shits in this country fear atheist and prefer to trust lesbian Muslims before they will trust an Atheist.

...that just affirms that there are far more morons out there then I guessed.
-medic001

Robert|9.21.09 @ 8:32PM|#

Three years before the election Obama wasn't considered a good candidate.

Or a candidate, period. But more than 1.5 yrs. before the election, Lloyd Braun had him money down on him. In multiples of $23. Never bet against Lloyd Braun.

It's way too early to make predictions.

Unless, possibly, you're Lloyd Braun. Never bet against Lloyd Braun.