“I’m sure there are days where I say that one term is enough,’’ Obama said.

[First]

Riiiight. You just showed that people still blame booooooosh (hey, when the entire media does it, of course the people will), but that's completely besides the point. People see that we are on the wrong track. You can blame lots of stuff on booosh, but you can't blame him for not getting us on the right track over the past 2 1/2 years. Try again sparky.

Again, sad you are this slow on the uptake. You can't on the one hand attempt to give your argument weight by using American public opinion polls showing the U.S. being on the wrong track while similtanously ignoring American public opinion polls that show Americans blame Bush for the current bad economy as recently as 3 weeks ago. The two polls are connected; one is not separate or unrelated from the other because one POTUS' economic policies aren't simply undone a couple years into the next Presidency. The fact you can't make the very simple connection between Bush, being on the wrong track, and how much blame "wrong track" should be put on Obama's 2 year presidency shows a pretty stellar lack of critical thinking skills. Of course, no one here has ever called you particularly intelligent.

 

[First]

As stated before, that's the but boooooosh excuse, but it simply doesn't hold any water unless you can show that things are on the right track. They are not. They are getting worse.

Economy has quite clearly been on the right track and getting better save for one month this year, the most recent one, which shows absolutely no proof of any trend.

 

[JSt0rm]

but when the trend of getting better continues we can bump all of this as lol worthy. The problem is pokerguy would rather see the economy fail then obama get credit for anything. If the economy was going strong he would be touting the tax cuts as the reason and how it was the republicans who fixed thing. You can win with this guy. He's too retarded to know he's retarded.

 

[thraashman]

Things are better but the economy has stalled over the last month or so. I do believe that actions by Bush at the end of his Presidency and Obama since have kept things from getting much worse than they could have been.

Funny thing is, if we had gone with what Republicans seem to think we should've done, we'd have had the following. Unemployment would have been significantly higher, I base this on the fact that no bailouts would have occurred and the American auto industry and Wallstreet would have had massive bankruptcies and layoffs, and loan industry would have tightended its asshole even more than it did. Rich get richer, poor get poorer, deficit probably about the same or gets higher. I base this because tax cuts that massively benefit the rich would have been increase, spending would have been massively cut that benefits the poor, and they would have offset eachother to either keep the deficit the same, or the previously mentioned increase in unemployment would have lowered revenue even more. More wars, Bin Ladin still living. I base this on the constant arguments for teaching Iran or North Korea a lesson, but the bitching about going into Pakistan because they're an ally of ours. Same gas prices, likelihood of an environmental disaster in addition to the Gulf oil spill. I base this on the fact that domestic drilling increases won't change the price of gas that is driven up by speculators, but the decrease in regulation pushed through to get the increased drilling would also increase risk of more oil spills.

I could actually keep going. I can look at EVERY policy of Republicans and show you why they're WRONG beyond any doubt. Unfortunately, the right just won't listen to how they're by no means right.

 

[xj0hnx]

Again, sad you are this slow on the uptake. You can't on the one hand attempt to give your argument weight by using American public opinion polls showing the U.S. being on the wrong track while similtanously ignoring American public opinion polls that show Americans blame Bush for the current bad economy as recently as 3 weeks ago. The two polls are connected; one is not separate or unrelated from the other because one POTUS' economic policies aren't simply undone a couple years into the next Presidency. The fact you can't make the very simple connection between Bush, being on the wrong track, and how much blame "wrong track" should be put on Obama's 2 year presidency shows a pretty stellar lack of critical thinking skills. Of course, no one here has ever called you particularly intelligent.

The only thing sad here is you. A majority of the country thinking that Obama is not doing the right things to fix Bush's mess is not the same thing as a majority of the country blaming Bush for the mess. It's not the same thing at all, except to a hack.

 

[JSt0rm]

I could actually keep going. I can look at EVERY policy of Republicans and show you why they're WRONG beyond any doubt. Unfortunately, the right just won't listen to how they're by no means right.

Thats why its become the "church of trickle down". There is only belief left no facts. ()

 

[werepossum]

lmao. Americans still blame Bush by solid majorities, kiddie, according to the most Republican leaning polling firm in the country: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._for_current_economic_problems_39_blame_obama

You really need to learn reading comprehension, or perhaps just read. The wording was:

1* Some people say the nation’s current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush Administration. Others say the problems are being caused more by the policies President Obama has put in place since taking office. Which point of view comes closest to your own?

2* Whose judgment do you trust more when it comes to economic issues affecting the nation – yourself or President Obama?

The choice was between Obama and the recession which began under Bush - NOT between Bush and Obama. Under that wording it's surprising that only 54% blame the recession. The worst one can say about Obama's policies is that some of them haven't helped much or have actively hindered the recovery. There's little chance we would be back at 4% unemployment no matter who won the Presidency in '08, and the underlying factors favoring out-sourcing predate Bush or Obama. Therefore the recession HAS to be mostly to blame. I suspect that describing the recession as beginning under Bush, combined with Rasmussen's common over-sampling of Republicans, artificially lowered the number of people blaming the current economic woes mostly on the recession.

Things are better but the economy has stalled over the last month or so. I do believe that actions by Bush at the end of his Presidency and Obama since have kept things from getting much worse than they could have been.

Pretty much this. I disagree with Obama's handling on the automobile manufacturers' bailout (specifically with shafting the preferred bond holders and giving GM to the UAW) and with much of the way TARP was handled, but that these things needed to be done to avoid a depression is undeniable. Only the details are in question, except for those who take the view that a depression should have been allowed to happen to allow a fundamentally stronger economy/country to emerge. I think most of us would agree that enduring a depression is to be avoided where possible, even if the result is a long recession and a recovery that exists mostly as Democrat talking points.

 

[p0nd]

As stated before, that's the but boooooosh excuse, but it simply doesn't hold any water unless you can show that things are on the right track. They are not. They are getting worse.

CBO estimates that ARRA's policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

- They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent,
- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.8 percentage points and 2.0 percentage points,
- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million, and
- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 2.0 million to 5.2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers).

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11975/11-24-ARRA.pdf

That is Q3 2010. Up until May 2011, the trend has continued.

Don't get me wrong -things aren't exactly peachy keen, but what you are saying does not resemble the truth.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Love the graph...now let's draw conclusions...lulz. Where in the hell did you get that turd?

 

[MissingYou]

What happens when the stimulus funds run out. States and local governments are starting to plan the layoffs that were postponed by a year.

Tax revenues have not increase to support the level of government that the stimulus supported.

Few of the stimulus funds were long term self sustaining projects - they just borrowed work from the future.

 

[sandorski]

What happens when the stimulus funds run out. States and local governments are starting to plan the layoffs that were postponed by a year.

Tax revenues have not increase to support the level of government that the stimulus supported.

Few of the stimulus funds were long term self sustaining projects - they just borrowed work from the future.

The Stimulus was insufficient to begin with.

 

[p0nd]

Love the graph...now let's draw conclusions...lulz. Where in the hell did you get that turd?

Graph was colored by independent fact checking site, numbers are the same as any graph of private sector job growth you will find from a US .gov website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december
http://www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/05/06/april-job-numbers-soar-high-above-private-sector-expectations (graph starts at 1999)
http://www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/03/04/employment-growth-rebounds-strongly-february
http://social.dol.gov/blog/a-promising-report-and-a-reminder-of-the-work-yet-to-do/

My conclusion is that you are unwilling to accept evidence which does not immediately conform to your political viewpoint. I suppose the next reply might be a very predictable "you can't trust the government they are lying about it" sort of post.

Sorry if that sounds snarky. But you're acting like this data just comes out of thin air. It doesn't.

 

[First]

The only thing sad here is you. A majority of the country thinking that Obama is not doing the right things to fix Bush's mess is not the same thing as a majority of the country blaming Bush for the mess. It's not the same thing at all, except to a hack.

Point out where I said it was the same thing. When you wimp out of being able to delineate it clearly, don't be mad when I make fun of you for it, mkay?

 

[First]

You really need to learn reading comprehension, or perhaps just read. The wording was:

The choice was between Obama and the recession which began under Bush - NOT between Bush and Obama. Under that wording it's surprising that only 54% blame the recession. The worst one can say about Obama's policies is that some of them haven't helped much or have actively hindered the recovery. There's little chance we would be back at 4% unemployment no matter who won the Presidency in '08, and the underlying factors favoring out-sourcing predate Bush or Obama. Therefore the recession HAS to be mostly to blame. I suspect that describing the recession as beginning under Bush, combined with Rasmussen's common over-sampling of Republicans, artificially lowered the number of people blaming the current economic woes mostly on the recession.

I'm going to be nice and ask you to read what you just quoted again, because quite clearly you are very confused about what the questions were asking. Here, I'll even quote the very first sentence of the Rasmussen article I linked, which summarizes their poll findings as follows: "A majority of voters continues to blame the nation’s economic problems on the George W. Bush years".

If you decide to still stick to your weird explanation, you'll have to explain exactly how this question was not worded to contrast who gets more blame for the current recession, Bush or Obama.

 

[JD50]

The Stimulus was insufficient to begin with.

fail

 

[sandorski]

fail

You Fail at the Fail. Sorry, but choose another path.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Graph was colored by independent fact checking site, numbers are the same as any graph of private sector job growth you will find from a US .gov website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/07/employment-situation-december
http://www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/05/06/april-job-numbers-soar-high-above-private-sector-expectations (graph starts at 1999)
http://www.esa.doc.gov/Blog/2011/03/04/employment-growth-rebounds-strongly-february
http://social.dol.gov/blog/a-promising-report-and-a-reminder-of-the-work-yet-to-do/

My conclusion is that you are unwilling to accept evidence which does not immediately conform to your political viewpoint. I suppose the next reply might be a very predictable "you can't trust the government they are lying about it" sort of post.

Sorry if that sounds snarky. But you're acting like this data just comes out of thin air. It doesn't.

Sigh...I don't dispute the data...I take issue with the way the data is being twisted in a way to conform to your political viewpoint.

Please tell me then...what are these Bush era policies they speak of? And why was job growth dramatically improving prior to the Recovery Act? And tell me why that improvement trend wouldn't have continued without the Recovery Act?

Oh, I see...the graph appears to have come from Media Matters...so are they the "independent fact checking site" you speak of who "colored" it...seriously?

Since we're now making conclusions about each other...my conclusion is that you don't know shit from Shinola. Sorry if that sounds snarky.

 

[First]

Sigh...I don't dispute the data...I take issue with the way the data is being twisted in a way to conform to your political viewpoint.

Please tell me then...what are these Bush era policies they speak of? And why was job growth dramatically improving prior to the Recovery Act? And tell me why wouldn't that improvement trend continue without the Recovery Act?

Oh...the graph appears to have come from Media Matters...so now they're considered an "independent fact checking site"...seriously?

Since we're now making conclusions about each other...my conclusion is that you don't know shit from Shinola.

He's correlating the two, but yes, there is no definitive proof either way. But the likelihood that those 100's of billions of gov't dollars would have been replaced by private dollars that would have done a better job stimulating the economy is extraordinarily difficult to believe. This crowding out of private investment, in this period, by the gov't is nonsense since before the Reinvestment Act was ever implemented you had -5% GDP growth and 700K job loss months. Clearly companies weren't spending money on hiring and consumers weren't consuming products, and the Reinvestment Act unquestionably (artificially) kept the economy from turning far gloomier and more negative. It wasn't the only reason, just a hugely important factor. If you're honest.

 

[JSt0rm]

fail

Actually most economists agreed that it should of been larger to have the desired effect. The compromise was made with the republicans. But of course the 1 word response of someone who watches too much football is riveting.

 

[dali71]

lmao. Americans still blame Bush by solid majorities, kiddie, according to the most Republican leaning polling firm in the country: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._for_current_economic_problems_39_blame_obama

From your link:

A strong majority (58%) trust their own judgment more than the president’s when it comes to economic issues affecting the nation. That finding has remained in the high 50s-to-low 60s since June 2009. Thirty percent (30%) place their trust in Obama to handle these issues, while 12% more are not sure.

Although voters still blame the Bush years for the current economic problems, they continue to trust Republicans – 46% to 42% -- more than Democrats to handle the issue of the economy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He's correlating the two, but yes, there is no definitive proof either way. But the likelihood that those 100's of billions of gov't dollars would have been replaced by private dollars that would have done a better job stimulating the economy is extraordinarily difficult to believe. This crowding out of private investment, in this period, by the gov't is nonsense since before the Reinvestment Act was ever implemented you had -5% GDP growth and 700K job loss months. Clearly companies weren't spending money on hiring and consumers weren't consuming products, and the Reinvestment Act unquestionably (artificially) kept the economy from turning far gloomier and more negative. It wasn't the only reason, just a hugely important factor. If you're honest.

I understand your point. However, my point stands that the graph "coloring" is total horseshit and if anyone can't see that...they're beyond brain dead.

 

[p0nd]

Sigh...I don't dispute the data...I take issue with the way the data is being twisted in a way to conform to your political viewpoint.

Please tell me then...what are these Bush era policies they speak of? And why was job growth dramatically improving prior to the Recovery Act? And tell me why that improvement trend wouldn't have continued without the Recovery Act?

Oh, I see...the graph appears to have come from Media Matters...so are they the "independent fact checking site" you speak of who "colored" it...seriously?

Since we're now making conclusions about each other...my conclusion is that you don't know shit from Shinola. Sorry if that sounds snarky.

Like i said mediamatters just colored the graph. At least we both agree that the source data is accurate. The reason i posted it is because Pokerguy is saying that things are getting worse, but there's a decent amount of data that suggests ARRA stopped things from getting worse and that economic indicators actually improved for a bit. Whether that improvement is temporary is what remains to be seen, though i hope it is not temporary for the sake of people who need to work and make a life (like me!)

It's a good question what they mean by "Bush era policies." I think that phrase is biased and inaccurate. R's and D's like to blame the financial crisis on each other; in reality I think pretty much everyone involved is to blame and it probably relates all the way back to policies that starting forming during the Reagan and Carter administrations. Following administrations either furthered the deregulation like Clinton or didn't bring any federal oversight to the market like Bush Jr. All of this under pressure and lobbying from wall st. and the mortgage and housing markets who wanted those loans which we all hear so much about now.

As for why was job growth improving prior to ARRA (the turnaround on the graph is in Jan 09 .... :hmm: lol), that is hard to say. I'm definitely no expert. Is it possible the private sector saw the effects of ARRA on the horizon when it was introduced in January, and was able to slowly start hiring again? Or possibly due to the effects of TARP. Of course i cannot read magically alternate timelines, but there was a consensus among economists that ARRA helped against downturn of the economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/21/business/21stimulus_graphic.html

 

[xj0hnx]

Point out where I said it was the same thing. When you wimp out of being able to delineate it clearly, don't be mad when I make fun of you for it, mkay?

You said he was wrong because the polls are not separate, and are related, which is false, they are two different questions.

 

[woolfe9999]

As for why was job growth improving prior to ARRA (the turnaround on the graph is in Jan 09 .... :hmm: lol), that is hard to say. I'm definitely no expert. Is it possible the private sector saw the effects of ARRA on the horizon when it was introduced in January, and was able to slowly start hiring again? Or possibly due to the effects of TARP. Of course i cannot read magically alternate timelines, but there was a consensus among economists that ARRA helped against downturn of the economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/11/21/business/21stimulus_graphic.html

I don't really understand why DSF made an issue of this. The improvement between January and February '09 was certainly not "dramatic," and in fact it got worse again in March. In any event, numbers will fluctuate up and down from month to month. The only thing that really matters is the trending over time.

 

[werepossum]

I'm going to be nice and ask you to read what you just quoted again, because quite clearly you are very confused about what the questions were asking. Here, I'll even quote the very first sentence of the Rasmussen article I linked, which summarizes their poll findings as follows: "A majority of voters continues to blame the nation’s economic problems on the George W. Bush years".

If you decide to still stick to your weird explanation, you'll have to explain exactly how this question was not worded to contrast who gets more blame for the current recession, Bush or Obama.

See the below.

From your link:

A strong majority (58%) trust their own judgment more than the president’s when it comes to economic issues affecting the nation. That finding has remained in the high 50s-to-low 60s since June 2009. Thirty percent (30%) place their trust in Obama to handle these issues, while 12% more are not sure.

Although voters still blame the Bush years for the current economic problems, they continue to trust Republicans – 46% to 42% -- more than Democrats to handle the issue of the economy.

Unless you're one of those simpletons who believes that the President truly runs the economy, "the Bush years" /= "Bush". If you are one of those simpletons who believes that the President truly runs the economy, then clearly Obama would be completely to blame for the poor economy. I understand that the headline confuses you, but again, the question referred to the recession during the Bush years, NOT Bush. One could for example believe that Barney Frank is 100% responsible for every bit of the recession during the Bush Presidency and be 100% against every Obama policy, and yet still concede that the recession he inherited has a greater affect on the current crappy economy than does Obama's policies. There is however no logical path by which one can believe that Bush is responsible for everything bad that happened during his Presidency and yet Obama is not similarly responsible for everything that happens in his; that requires either total moon battery or basic dishonesty.