Paulson, Bailout Unpopular
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Wednesday, a majority of Americans give low marks to the way Treasure Secretary Henry “Hank” Paulson is doing his job, and to the bailout package which was improved by U.S. Congress almost three weeks ago, but which was mostly written by Paulson and his top staffers.
64% of those asked said they disapproved of Paulson’s performance during the crisis and now, while only 28% said they approved. The margin of error of the poll was 3%.
Although those numbers are extremely bad for Paulson, he is still more popular than U.S. President George W. Bush. According to an earlier poll, 72% of Americans said they disapproved of the job the president is doing.
Paulson’s unpopularity is for a large part due to the bailout package; 56% of Americans said they opposed the bill. 53% of Americans said they thought it was a bad idea for the federal government to provide ‘capital to banks and other financial institutions in exchange for an equity stake in those companies.’
58%, five percent more, said they ‘think the idea of the government providing financial assistance to keep a big company in business in exchange for a stake in that company is also a bad idea,’ CNN said in its report of the poll.
Interestingly enough, a majority of Americans are open to persuasion on the bailout plan, or so other polls have made clear in recent days. This means that the Bush administration and the leaders in Congress have not done a good enough job explaining the necessity of the bailout plan to the American people. They put pressure on Congressmen to vote for it, but they did not inform voters of the necessity of the plan. This is in a democracy an almost unforgivable sin.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
How much of this is “brand name recognition” or better put “brand name disgust”
Republican = bad for pocketbook
I have given two guest lectures this week on the financial crisis to ethics classes. I posed the question to them as this: What is the ethical obligation of congressional representatives — to obey the express will of the people (block the bailout) or to serve the people’s best interests as testified to by experts (pass to bailout to prevent a depression)?
The basic democratic norm is the populist principle that the will of the people should rule. But real ethical consideration should be given to the possibility that “the people” are ignorant or prone to emotionalism and that indulging them in a moment of genuine crisis could transform populism into a suicide pact.
The basic democratic norm is the populist principle that the will of the people should rule. But real ethical consideration should be given to the possibility that “the people” are ignorant or prone to emotionalism and that indulging them in a moment of genuine crisis could transform populism into a suicide pact.
O, I agree with that, which is why I would never say it should not have been passed. I do say, however,that I believe Congressional leaders did not explain the bailout plan well enough before it passed, and haven’t done so afterwards either.
I give a break to Congressional leaders on this one because it is very, very hard to provide a sober and educational analysis of a complex financial issue at the same time that purists are throwing dust in the air with inflammatory distortions like “handout to rich bankers” (from the left) and “socialism” (from the right).
I usually defend talk radio against the distortions about it from its critics (and their attempts to shut it down by using the hilariously misnamed “Fairness Doctrine”), but the way that most conservative talk radio hosts have treated the financial crisis is beyond irresponsible, it is pure demagoguery. When the economic health of the entire country may lie in the balance, I consider their demagoguery to be an indulgence that is downright immoral.