« | »

Satisfaction With Gov’t Lowest In 10 Yrs

From Gallup:

U.S. Satisfaction With Gov’t, Morality, Economy Down Since ’08

Satisfaction with government system, size, and power down most in last 10 years

by Jeffrey M. Jones
January 24, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ — When President Obama delivers his State of the Union speech Tuesday, he will be addressing a nation that is less satisfied with a variety of aspects of U.S. life than it was in 2008. Americans’ satisfaction with six of seven different economic, moral, or governmental aspects is down significantly compared with Gallup’s prior measurement three years ago, as the economy was slowing down but before the financial crisis hit.

Wait a second. We have been told by our news media and the rest of the Democrat political machinery that the ‘Great Recession’ started in the last quarter of 2007.

And now we’re told it was just "slowing down" in 2008.

Currently, Americans are most likely to express satisfaction with the overall quality of life in the United States (77%). Majorities also remain satisfied with the influence of organized religion (58%) and the opportunity for a person to get ahead by working hard (55%), though the latter has shown the greatest decline since 2008. Americans are least satisfied with the size and influence of major corporations (29%), the moral and ethical climate (30%), and the size and power of the federal government (31%).

Notice how Gallup puts the rating for the federal government last, even though it garners the least satisfaction of the items on their list.

Over the past decade, the two items measuring satisfaction with the government have declined the most. Satisfaction with the U.S. system of government and how it works is down 34 percentage points from its 2002 high, and satisfaction with the size and power of the federal government is down 29 points from its high the same year. Those 2002 figures were higher because of the rally in support of government after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, but since then, there has been a decline in satisfaction in those two areas that has accelerated over the last three years. The current satisfaction levels with government are also significantly lower than in January 2001, prior to the terrorist attacks…

Gee, you would think the ‘poll’ in November would have told them some of this.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, January 25th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Satisfaction With Gov’t Lowest In 10 Yrs”

  1. Astravogel says:

    The ancient Romans got more accurate
    auguries from reading goose guts.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:


    I thought BUSH was the problem? How could it be the lowest in 10 years? Oh…that’s right….Bush still runs the show from his satellite white house in Crawford, TX. It’s the only possible explanation. It couldn’t be that the last two years has seen a systematic dis-assembly of our economic and legal system by a bunch of National Socialists. No…of course not. It has to be Bush. It couldn’t be that we have a “president” who is of questionable origins, who’s a marxist and believer in his own smell. No. Nor the former speaker of the house who wielded absolute totalitarian control over congress…no. Nor the cramdown of lame-duck-session legislation that NO real American wanted, all to further destroy the nation from within. Had to be Bush.


  3. GetBackJack says:

    I was raised by unrepentant Southern rebels in the hills of north Alabama and Southeastern Tennessee. My grandfathers were told History by their grandfathers and our kin are buried in National Cemeteries. Back in the 1950s I vividly recall being told by my paternal circuit riding preacher Grandfather EXACTLY what was going to happen to our nation … and it is exactly as he said it would be. I’ve been privy to letters and journals from my Southern relatives from the era of the War of Northern Aggression, from the reconstruction era that followed and from the era of WWI through the Great Depression …. and the correspondence between men and their wives, men and their brothers, their letters and journals reflect a people that so very much wanted to fight the District of Columbia to a standstill and MAKE IT OBEY THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN.

    I come from damn smart seed stock, people who were Right.

    The most clear and present danger to the United States of America is the District of Columbia and the federal tyranny that inhabits it.

    • proreason says:

      “The most clear and present danger to the United States of America is the District of Columbia and the federal tyranny that inhabits it.”


      I don’t have a strong opinion on the other part, but I have found it interesting recently to read a couple of opinions that slavery was destined to be abolished within 50 years or so of the Civil War, whether or not the war was fought. a) the opinions were interesting, b) it was interesting that the opinions saw the light of day, and c) if it if true, then Abraham Lincoln should be considered responsible for 600,000 unnecessary deaths rather than our greatest hero. Again, I don’t know. Like a lot of things, the truth probably depends on the side of the fence you sit on.

      It is hard to imagine slavery lasting until 1900 even without the Civil War, isn’t it? Western culture was moving rapidly in the other direction. And the rancor of that war and the horror it rained during and for 100 years afterwards might have been avoided. Not for sure, but possibly.

      And it’s amazing that 160 years after those horrible events, the story of slavery still dominates American politics, and now, that the lessons of slavery have been hijacked and used to advance diffenent evils by people who make the slavemasters look like pantywaists.

    • dscam says:

      Don’t be fooled, proreason. Slavery would not have been abolished in the southern states without a Civil War. Southerners constantly proclaim that the Civil War was a war for states’ rights, a war of Northern aggression, etc. The fact of the matter is, the states’ rights they were fighting for were specifically the rights to keep slaves, and to have their runaway slaves returned to them by non-slaveholding states. Google and read through their statements of secession, it’s spelled out in black and white. Mississipi would be one case in point, who stated that, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”


      The site above is a pretty good breakdown of the myths surrounding the Civil War.

    • proreason says:

      I’m not easily fooled dscam.

      It would have been very difficult to sustain slavery in a late-19th century western country, particularly the sole remaining western country to do so. The pressure would have been intense.

      Don’t forget that western economies were changing rapidly in the mid-19th century. Industrialization was in full swing. The south’s economy was dominantly based on cotton, and was not sustainable. That would have been another factor that would have worked against slavery. Could the south have raised the capital to migrate its economy and give up the still lucrative cotton trade? Perhaps not. Would the majority of whites who were not slaveowners but small farmers have been willing to see their lifestyles continually degrade to prop up a stubborn and immoral elite? Perhaps not.

      Nobody can say for sure because there is only one past, but the south certainly would have been more and more marginalized as the century progressed.

      Something else I wonder about is whether the US would have been wiser to let the south go its own way. 600,000 deaths for a country with a population 1/4 of today was a horrible price to pay. And other than abolitionists, the north was far from a moral giant on the issue. Lincoln himself might have been a racist. Of course, he was an amazing leader to have been able to drag the north to victory. I don’t think there is any chance that anybody would be able to do what he did today.

    • tranquil.night says:

      It is in the spirit of Abolition that the war had always been necessary, but not practical, from the nation’s founding. Even at such a disastrous cost, the United States was founded with a moral imperative to stand with and defend the cause of Liberty, no matter what. It’s what makes us different. The institution of slavery was a fierce hypocritical stain to that legacy, which try as the framers had to address it then, was only still in existence because the country would not have survived external enemies with such internal divisions, after just winning it’s independence.

      That does not mean the sides were clear-cut by any means. There were many issues causing political tension between the two sides at the time, and it’s arguable that the first lurch toward secession came more in response to the election of Lincoln’s whole governing platform rather than just the Republican position on slavery. Lincoln took the nation to war for more reasons than to abolish slavery or preserve the union, too. Just as there were Northerners who had no interest in the grand cause, with self-serving reasons of serving like to rank up or get paid. So too were there Southerners that weren’t fighting for Slavery as well, but honest and real constitutional grievances with Federal Washington and its encroachment on States’ Rights.

      That is what made that war such an ugly stain of Devil’s magic – how it divided friends and families right down lines of ideological or geographical loyalty, not just “slave state” or “free state,” and drove them into such a frenzy that the system stopped working and they started killing eachother. By Gettysberg, few people on either side had any idea why they were fighting anymore, it had been so thoroughly devastating. Years of war had practically driven Lee insane with the idea that he was some hero on a righteous crusade of truth, whereas in the North the idea that freedom didn’t mean the right to own another life as property was the only real reason that fighting made any sense anymore. It was the only reason they won too: the few like Chamberlain who’s belief in the actual right thing gave them the courage and strength to keep the battered and out-strategized Federal army together, whereas Lee’s delusions of self-importance were in no small part cause to his demise.

      Whether Lincoln was truly as sympathetic to leading that particular cause from the beginning, I do think he genuinely believed and championed it by the Gettysberg Address.

    • dscam says:

      I didn’t mean to imply that you were easily fooled, pro; no offense intended. I suppose it’s possible that slavery would have ended in fifty years or so had the southern states not seceded, but their various declarations of secession prove that they wouldn’t have done so willingly. I think it would have required either direct military intervention, or the complete and catastrophic collapse of their economies to end slavery. Honestly, they probably would have tried to apply more, not less, slave labor to solve the problem of an economic collapse.

      I hear what you’re saying about letting the South go; in some ways I sympathize with their cause. Although the right they were fighting for was the right to own slaves, I think they had a good point about the various states entering voluntarily into a relationship with the federal government, and that they should be free to leave that relationship if it was the desire of their citizens. On the other hand, the United States became a world power in the years after World War One, which wasn’t far removed from the aftermath of the Civil War. It seems doubtful that we would be citizens of the greatest country in the history of the world had not Abe Lincoln held the Union together. As far as who held the moral high ground, I avoid those kinds of statements, because they’re the type of argument used by liberals: You can’t be opposed to gay rights; you’ve got a gay son. I believe that absolute truths exist, things that are true simply because they are true. For example, the statement “murder is wrong” is true whether it is spoken by a felon or the Pope. Likewise, it doesn’t matter how you feel about other races. Slavery is wrong simply because it is wrong.

    • BannedbytheTaliban says:

      “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
      – H. L. Mencken

    • proreason says:

      I’m not as much an absolutist as tn and dscam, although I do believe in abolutes and that murder and slavery are two clear cut examples. The problem is that absolutes have a tendancy to clash sometimes. The south held that the absolute was states rights, Lincoln held that the abolute was the union. Cynically, I would suggest that abolutes often seem to work out in the best interest of the holder. I doubt that any of the major players in 1860 thought that slavery was the absolute we see it as today. Remember, there has never been a time when slavery didn’t exist, and we often use the word to mean something less than the slavery of the old South. I frequently call Middle Age Serfs slaves, even though they had more freedom than old south slaves. Since almost anything that can happen will happen, there may also have been slaves somewhere sometime who were worse off than the old south slaves.

      Regarding the point about a fractured US never becoming what it became united; that’s probably true. The real test though isn’t this or that, but whether in the long haul, the price was worth the benefit. Currrent history has already made that decision. The answer is yes. But as someone who has studied the history of history, I can tell you that such an answer often changes over time. There may be absolutes in some peoples lives, but there are no absolutes in history. The interpretation of past events depends heavily on current events.

      btw, Lincoln is my favorite political figure of all time. I see him as the most courageous mortal who ever lived. Churchill is second. Mrs. reason is third. And I don’t think I could have been a slaveholder. I don’t even like to ask waiters to bring me a second cup of coffee.

    • GetBackJack says:

      I see, as usual, and expected, statements about the rebels seeking to get away from the federal establishment OR make it obey the Constitution as written went straight to the issue os slavery.

      Missing the point.

      The point is …. Washington does not obey the Constitution as written. The point is …. the federal establishment in the District of Columbia is the singular threat to the United States of America and the point is …. my people were 100% correct. Either force Washington to obey the Constitution as written or secede. No third choice.

      We are living now the reality of the predictions of my people.

      BTW – though I refuse to debate the many and varied exclamations about that war which consumed the lives of my American brothers and sisters and destroyed so many more, let us not forget WHY the colonies founded themselves as States and those States joined together to become the States of America united.

      The right to self-determination.

      by H.L. Mencken

      The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

  4. Tater Salad says:

    Please let your voice & opinions be heard and join the following Tea Party websites to become part of the movement in taking our country back from liberal/progressive left wing loons who are destroying capitalism and the Free Market System that has built this great country:

    The Conservative Party is “fighting” two wars within our own borders as we speak. The first one is with the liberal/progressive Party of Food Stamps and the second is with Muslims trying to bring Sharia Law into America and its court systems and making the U.S. Islamic/Sharia compliant. Both of these wars have to be won or the U.S. and its Constitution will fail. Defeating liberalism will defeat Sharia Law since Muslims are using liberalism and the gullible, Democratic base as their vehicle to advance their radical agenda here in the U.S.














    (Do not send money unless you are satisfied that any of these Tea Party websites are for you)

  5. P. Aaron says:

    The AARP & Consumer Reports were unavailable for comment.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »