Government Spending

Bailout, Stimulus II, Government Spending: Still Totally Unpopular

|

Some new polling data:

[A] new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% of Americans favor providing federal bailout funds to states with serious financial problems. Fifty-eight percent (58%) oppose giving bailout money to financially troubled states.

No more

On top of that, 56% of Americans oppose the passage of another economic stimulus package this year. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats are hoping to spend more to combat unemployment, just 33% favor another stimulus plan.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters believe the first stimulus plan passed in February has helped the U.S. economy, but 34% say it has hurt the economy.

Most Americans (53%) believe the U.S. economy will be helped more by decisions made by business leaders to help their own businesses grow rather than by decisions made by government officials. Just 29% say decisions made by government officials to help the economy grow will do more.

By a 59% to 24% margin, voters believe that an increase in government spending will hurt the economy.

The Obama administration has a problem. Link via Instapundit.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: 20 More Years in Afghanistan?, Bad Meat in Public Schools, TSA Posts Secrets Online

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I might agree that the Obama admin has a problem, if I thought that enough of our so-called representatives WERE, in fact. Based on all the opposition calls that Congress-critters got on the initial bailouts and still proceeded, I expect they’ll do whatever they damn well please and it will be up to whatever administration/Congress is next after we (hopefully) throw the bums out to try to fix it. There’s only so much clawing back that can be done of money already allocated or spent for “stimulus”… Point is, it doesn’t matter how upset people are with the administration. Obama and Congress can fuck us, long, dry and hard, and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it for until the next election.

  2. The Obama administration doesn’t have a problem. Congress members (of both parties) in not-safe seats have a problem. The adminstration has a good two years before this becomes a re-election problem.

  3. And since it’s unlikely that Obama is going to get a Gingrich to play to his Clinton, a broad swath of public opinion that says ‘Don’t do something, just stand there’, maybe the best gift he can get.

    (similarly, it’s not such a bad thing for the reports to come out ‘the recession is ending, all hail the victors’. Whether it’s true or not, it does give less of a push to try to ‘fix’ the economy.)

  4. Good to see people uncomfortable with government spending (the “but the people want it!” defense is proving false), but I’d be careful using polls to back up any kind of libertarian ideas. Run a poll about drug legalization or demilitarizing police forces. People will shit their pants thinking about practical application of those ideas.

  5. Pfft
    These are the bums we got after we through out the last set. Congress is going to dry fuck our ass no matter what because Rs and Ds both work for the same establishment. There’s nothing we can do about it. And whatever you do, don’t ever vote for the Libertarian, because that would be stupid.

    1. Translation: The Rs and Ds will rape you. So don’t vote for the only people on the ballot who won’t rape you, because voting for people who agree with you is stupid.

      Or, in V-speak: “But, if we don’t vote for this passel of people-eating lizards, the WRONG lizards will get in office!”

  6. If the voters truly disliked gargantuan government spending, then why did they elect politicians who openly advocated for gargantuan government spending?

    1. Exactly, this is why such polls have to be taken with a mountain of NaCl.

      What is more likely the case is that the voters don’t like where the money is being spent rather than the fact that it is being spent.

      Another factor in play is the fact that while a majority may in fact believe that spending is too high, there is no consensus on exactly what budget line items have to be crossed out to reduce spending in any meanigful way. Almost everyone has his or her own sacred cow.

      1. Indeed IB.

        Hence the incredible amount of lobbies and PACs present in DC.

        One group’s pork is another’s subsidy.

        1. Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that man behind the tree.

          🙂

    2. Because they don’t object to gargantuan govt spending if it is spent in their district — and their big-govt guy or gal promised to bring home the pork.

  7. “The Obama administration has a problem”

    Undersate much?

  8. If the voters truly disliked gargantuan government spending, then why did they elect politicians who openly advocated for gargantuan government spending?

    Because there’s not another kind.

  9. Sometimes my poopy hole itches so I tell mommy and she makes it all better with lotion.

    I love you mommy!

  10. Just 29% say decisions made by government officials to help the economy grow will do more.

    Oh, “just” 29%. Just 29%. Only 29% think that the Soviet Union presents a model for economic growth that should be emulated. And this is the USA in 2009 (not in 1933 when every pointy-headed intellectual was convinced that Soviet Marxism was the way forward).

    Hearkening back to the ancient Greeks, can we somehow write the names of these 29% on pottery shards and then kick them out of the country? That would at least “create jobs” in the pottery sector.

  11. The Obama administration doesn’t HAVE a problem, the Obama administration IS a problem.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.