Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama for Bad Economy

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,787

    Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama for Bad Economy

    [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx"]http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx[/URL]

    [QUOTE]


    [B][U]Americans Still Blame Bush More Than Obama for Bad Economy[/U][/B]

    [B][I]About half of Republicans blame Bush[/I][/B]

    by Frank Newport


    PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans continue to place more blame for the nation's economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago. The relative economic blame given to Bush versus Obama today is virtually the same as it was last September.

    Gallup first asked this "blame assessment" question in July 2009, six months after Obama became president. At that point, 80% of Americans gave Bush a great deal or a moderate amount of blame, compared with 32% who ascribed the same level of blame for the bad economy to Obama. The percentage blaming Bush dropped to about 70% in August 2010, and has stayed roughly in that range since. Meanwhile, about half of Americans have blamed Obama since March 2010, with little substantive change from then to the present.

    Americans continue to name the economy as the most important problem facing the country, and in an election that likely will be defined by a struggling economy, the question of who is responsible for it will weigh heavily in voters' minds. Both Obama and presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a result have focused heavily on the economy in their campaigns, the most recent example of which is the major economic speech Obama will deliver Thursday in the key swing state of Ohio. Romney has attempted to place blame for the country's continuing economic struggles squarely on Obama's shoulders. At the same time, the Obama campaign is trying to deflect blame away from the president, in part by assigning blame to his predecessor.

    The relative amount of blame Americans give to Obama and to Bush has largely stabilized over the last two years. It remains to be seen whether Americans are open to further discussion of those issues in the months remaining before the Nov. 6 election, or whether their minds are made up.

    [B]Half of Republicans Blame Bush[/B]

    Republicans and Democrats distribute economic blame in different ways, as was the case last September. Democrats follow what might be described as a fairly traditional pattern: 90% blame Bush, in contrast to 19% who blame Obama.

    Republicans, however, are more ecumenical in their blame, with 83% blaming Obama a great deal or moderate amount and 49% ascribing the same level of blame to Bush. Republicans, in short, are significantly more willing to blame their most recent Republican president than are Democrats willing to blame Obama.

    Independents are substantially more likely to blame Bush (67%) than to blame Obama (51%) for the nation's economic problems, a finding that no doubt provides some comfort to the Obama re-election campaign. And fewer independents blame Obama now than did so last September (60%).

    [B]Implications[/B]

    Although the Obama campaign would like to make this election less of a referendum on Obama's performance and more of a choice between two candidates, it is clear that any incumbent's stewardship of the economy is a key factor in his re-election chances. Americans continue to have more negative than positive views of the current economy and the direction in which it is headed, which generally does not bode well for Obama.

    Still, 68% of Americans say former President Bush should be given a great deal or a moderate amount of blame for the nation's economic woes -- substantially more than say the same about Obama. This suggests that Obama's argument that he is on the right track and needs more time to turn the economy around could fall on receptive ears, particularly those of independents.

    [B]Survey Methods [/B]

    Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 7-10, 2012, with a random sample of 1,004 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

    For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is Ī4 percentage points.

    Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

    Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

    In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

    View methodology, full question results, and trend data.


    For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit [url]www.gallup.com[/url].


    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Buster;4492174][URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx"]http://www.gallup.com/poll/155177/Americans-Blame-Bush-Obama-Bad-Economy.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]

    One problem buster rhymes. G Bush isn't running for President this time. Obama has a record this time and no one with half a brain believes this country heading in the right direction.


    ON side note this is why Democrats are so full of it. (old classic Barney Frank and his Democrat lies) [IMG]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fKpBPRKbvQ&feature=related[/IMG]

  3. #3
    There are allot of Deaf, Dumb and Blind people out there. It's Bush fault close to four years later. Obama take a good look in the mirror the reflection is the problem. Dumbass!

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,787
    [QUOTE=Raider9175;4492273]

    One problem buster rhymes. G Bush isn't running for President this time. Obama has a record this time and no one with half a brain believes this country heading in the right direction.

    [/QUOTE]

    And you believe people will logically deduce that we should elect a man who will return us to the Bush administrationís economic policies?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Buster;4493350]And you believe people will logically deduce that we should elect a man who will return us to the Bush administrationís economic policies?[/QUOTE]

    Obama has doubled down on that already and the piece of his legislation is going to get cut to shreds. There is a very simple answer if you want to get the big money out of politics you get the politics out of private industry. Stop playing favorites!

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Buster;4493350]And you believe people will logically deduce that we should elect a man who will return us to the Bush administrationís economic policies?[/QUOTE]

    YEs it wasn't bush but the democrat congress. (that failed us) What year again did the democrats take over both the House and Senate(if you know the constitution where laws come from those two bodies and not executive branch) That Democrat congresss spent so much (like they do everything else) . How much debt have the United staes added since nacy pelosi took over the house.


    Why did clinton look so much better his second term. Who was running both houses of Congress. That was rebublican policies.

  7. #7
    Raider, Great Points. Clinton balanced the budget because the republicans made him do it. Obama on the other hand will not compromise even it destroys our economy. He needs to be sent back to the most corrupt city in the country Chicago.

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,440
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4493509]Raider, Great Points. Clinton balanced the budget because the republicans made him do it. Obama on the other hand will not compromise even it destroys our economy. He needs to be sent back to the most corrupt city in the country Chicago.[/QUOTE]

    I wish I could quote all on this thread as neither know what they are talking about. I could also tell none of you know how the legislative or federal branches of government work. So let me make it simple... Congress creates bills, and presidents sign them into law.

    Let's look at Bush and his republican congress accomplished... He wanted his tax cut on the 1% during a time of fightIng 2 wars one justified against the terrorist country that attacked us (Afghanistan) another which had no merit (Iraq) which eventually gave controll of Iraqi oil fields to BP & china.

    Now you say the "republicans made Clinton balance the budget", what little knowledge of history you have. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was signed into law by Clinton after the republican controlled congress was a tie in its vote. Republicans voted against that bill because it raised taxes on the top 1%(don't that sound familiar), and guess who has the tie breaking vote that made this bill law? Al Gore the VP who's duty it is in those time as per our Constitution.

    Your lies and propaganda can only get so far, Unfortunatly not many in our country know the truth but rather repeat the rhetoric they hear.
    Last edited by dmitexxi; 06-16-2012 at 08:48 PM.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,787
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4493527]I wish I could quote all on this thread as neither know what they are talking about. I could also tell none of you know how the legislative or federal branches of government work. So let me make it simple... Congress creates bills, and presidents sign them into law.

    Let's look at Bush and his republican congress accomplished... He wanted his tax cut on the 1% during a time of fightIng 2 wars one justified against the terrorist country that attacked us (Afghanistan) another which had no merit (Iraq) which eventually gave controll of Iraqi oil fields to BP & china.

    Now you say the "republicans made Clinton balance the budget", what little knowledge of history you have. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was signed into law by Clinton after the republican controlled congress was a tie in its vote. Republicans voted against that bill because it raised taxes on the top 1%(don't that sound familiar), and guess who has the tie breaking vote that made this bill law? Al Gore the VP who's duty it is in those time as per our Constitution.

    Your lies and propaganda can only get so far, Unfortunatly not many in our country know the truth but rather repeat the rhetoric they hear.[/QUOTE]

    +1

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,787
    [QUOTE=Raider9175;4493505]YEs it wasn't bush but the democrat congress. (that failed us) What year again did the democrats take over both the House and Senate(if you know the constitution where laws come from those two bodies and not executive branch) That Democrat congresss spent so much (like they do everything else) . How much debt have the United staes added since nacy pelosi took over the house.


    Why did clinton look so much better his second term. Who was running both houses of Congress. That was rebublican policies.[/QUOTE]




    FACTS:

    The Bush administration cut taxes in 2001 & 2003 to the lowest levels in 50+ years.

    The Bush Administration got us into a very expensive war in Iraq for no good reason. He also never paid for that war in the budget he used "suplemental bills" to pay for it. Makes for better headlines when the budget is released.

    In each of the last 4 months of the Bush Administration and in each of the first 4 months of the Obama Administration there were 400,000+ jobs lost. This crushed government and state revenue and put millions of folks one the dole.

  11. #11
    both Democrats and Republicans are $%^# idiots

    Ever try to discuss the monetary system and the actual mechanisms of money and credit creation with a Democrat/Republican? Chances are you get a blank stare because they haven't even thought about the most important issue! They would rather argue stupid things like abortion, gay marriage, and a few percentage points in taxes.

    The banks have done a very effective job buying both parties and getting them to argue issues of little importance.

    Here's a little secret: no matter if Obama/Romney wins in 2012, we will still be slaves to the private banks.

    Things will continue to be bad until people wake up and demand reform of the monetary system. We need to reign in fractional reserve banking and have a system where the money in the economy actually exists and is not tied to CDOs, credit default swaps, and all this other crap.

    1 dollar of capital for every dollar lent out, that is the solution to fixing the economy.

  12. #12
    We're here! We're FAP! We're not gonna take your crap!

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4493527]I wish I could quote all on this thread as neither know what they are talking about. I could also tell none of you know how the legislative or federal branches of government work. So let me make it simple... Congress creates bills, and presidents sign them into law.

    Let's look at Bush and his republican congress accomplished... He wanted his tax cut on the 1% during a time of fightIng 2 wars one justified against the terrorist country that attacked us (Afghanistan) another which had no merit (Iraq) which eventually gave controll of Iraqi oil fields to BP & china.

    Now you say the "republicans made Clinton balance the budget", what little knowledge of history you have. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act was signed into law by Clinton after the republican controlled congress was a tie in its vote. Republicans voted against that bill because it raised taxes on the top 1%(don't that sound familiar), and guess who has the tie breaking vote that made this bill law? Al Gore the VP who's duty it is in those time as per our Constitution.

    Your lies and propaganda can only get so far, Unfortunatly not many in our country know the truth but rather repeat the rhetoric they hear.[/QUOTE]

    I'm confused. You said that Bush signed a tax cut for the top 1%. I heard he cut taxes for all Americans. The information I had said that 70% of the tax cuts went to people making under 250K and 30% went to those over 250K. How does this reconcile with your 1% info? Seems strange.

    Furthermore I heard that Obama had two years of complete control of the House and Senate. Didn't he extend the Bush tax cut? Why would he do that if his platform is that tax cuts are bad and dont help the economy? Seems odd. Also, didn't Obama run for office during the economic collapse? Didn't he lay out an agenda for recovery which included 5 million new green energy jobs? Didn't he then pass a stimulus which included 100Billion + in green energy grants and loans? I heard most of the companies (80% of whom were owned by Obama bundlers) that got the grants and loans are on the verge of or already bankrupt. Where are the 5 million green jobs we supposedly paid for?

  14. #14
    Americans are not as smart as we give ourselves credit for. We are very subject to the propaganda machine. And Herr Goebbels (David Axelrod) has been doing a fine job. The Dem propaganda machine has been rolling.
    When the Reps roll out the ads to inform, attitues wil change.
    If not, we deserve what we get.
    There will be plenty of time to offshore our money.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,440
    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4493689]We're here! We're FAP! We're not gonna take your crap![/QUOTE]

    It's responses like this that completly proves your polical views are based on cultural rethotic rather than facts and leaves you with little credibility.


    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4493719]I'm confused. You said that Bush signed a tax cut for the top 1%. I heard he cut taxes for all Americans. The information I had said that 70% of the tax cuts went to people making under 250K and 30% went to those over 250K. How does this reconcile with your 1% info? Seems strange.

    Furthermore I heard that Obama had two years of complete control of the House and Senate. Didn't he extend the Bush tax cut? Why would he do that if his platform is that tax cuts are bad and dont help the economy? Seems odd. Also, didn't Obama run for office during the economic collapse? Didn't he lay out an agenda for recovery which included 5 million new green energy jobs? Didn't he then pass a stimulus which included 100Billion + in green energy grants and loans? I heard most of the companies (80% of whom were owned by Obama bundlers) that got the grants and loans are on the verge of or already bankrupt. Where are the 5 million green jobs we supposedly paid for?[/QUOTE]

    You at least attempt to answer but again use redirection and forget key facts.

    First critical flaw in your argument is incomplete... What you are overlooking to fit your political agenga is that Obama had to extend the tax cut because Bush/Paulson/Federal Reserve decided to give BILLIONS of taxpayers money to Bailout the large financials after the made risky bets on mortgages, insured those bets with AIG, and AIG unable to pay up when rich middle easter and chineese investors wanted to pull out their money from hose financial engineered instruments. So when unemployment sky rocketed and the president wanted to extend unemployment benefits he had to extend those Bush tax cuts to help that part of America people with your political agenda tend to forget. Also lets not overloook the Bush tax cuts show the largest redistribution of wealth shifted about 20% year after year creating the largest gap in the history of our nation.

    Let's Also not be naive when we talking about "green jobs"; you are under the impression our electected officials care about us or our country. I'm not nieve to believe that, truth is these elected officials are in the pockets of the the special interest groups and lobbiest who fund their campaigns.
    Last edited by dmitexxi; 06-17-2012 at 12:01 PM.

  16. #16
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    2,440
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4493746]Americans are not as smart as we give ourselves credit for. We are very subject to the propaganda machine. And Herr Goebbels (David Axelrod) has been doing a fine job. The Dem propaganda machine has been rolling.
    When the Reps roll out the ads to inform, attitues wil change.
    If not, we deserve what we get.
    There will be plenty of time to offshore our money.[/QUOTE]

    This made me LOL

  17. #17
    Speaking of debt: the Prez went to lunch the other day with a couple barbers and the SS. He BOLTED on the bill. Did not bother paying.
    Later bill was paid when the restaurant owner complained. to the news.
    Paraphrasing the Hawaiian "It was just like what George Bush did to me. Left me with out paying". Not a total, irresponsible moron, right?

  18. #18
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,514
    That's good for Obama then, because he clearly can't run on his own accomplishments.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=dmitexxi;4493747]It's responses like this that completly proves your polical views are based on cultural rethotic rather than facts and leaves you with little credibility.




    You at least attempt to answer but again use redirection and forget key facts.

    First critical flaw in your argument is incomplete... What you are overlooking to fit your political agenga is that Obama had to extend the tax cut because Bush/Paulson/Federal Reserve decided to give BILLIONS of taxpayers money to Bailout the large financials after the made risky bets on mortgages, insured those bets with AIG, and AIG unable to pay up when rich middle easter and chineese investors wanted to pull out their money from hose financial engineered instruments. So when unemployment sky rocketed and the president wanted to extend unemployment benefits he had to extend those Bush tax cuts to help that part of America people with your political agenda tend to forget. Also lets not overloook the Bush tax cuts show the largest redistribution of wealth shifted about 20% year after year creating the largest gap in the history of our nation.

    Let's Also not be naive when we talking about "green jobs"; you are under the impression our electected officials care about us or our country. I'm not nieve to believe that, truth is these elected officials are in the pockets of the the special interest groups and lobbiest who fund their campaigns.[/QUOTE]

    Your answer is confusing. Earlier you said that the Bush Tax cut was for the 1%. Then here you say Obama had to extend the tax cuts for the people my ideology (absurd statement BTW) tend to forget? With the power of the Presidency, House and Senate why not cancel the cuts completely or cancel part of them if that is great for the economy?

    Next you claim that "the Bush tax cuts show the largest redistribution of wealth shifted about 20% year after year creating the largest gap in the history of our nation". The statement is confusing so I'd like for you to clarify. Since tax cuts are by definition the opposite of redistribution of wealth I assume you want to correct that part of the sentence. Now the Bush Tax Cut actually made the tax code more progressive by removing a large portion of the "bottom 50%" from having to pay any taxes at all.

    We know the numbers. In 1980 the top 10% paid 40% of the income tax burden. Today do to shifts in the tax code the top 10% pays 70% of the income tax burden. I'm not sure how those numbers jive with your theories. Finally the main reason that statistics show a gap in income is because of the crappy economy. The liberals in goevrnment have blocked entrapraneuers through regulation. They have blocked attempts at energy expansion through the EPA's repeated obstruction. They have blocked attempts at expansion of domestic manufacturing through an NLRB filled with union cronies. When Boeing wanted to open a new multi-billion dollar plant the NLRB blocked them and sued them. In the end they blackmailed Boeing in to giving a generous new contract to workers at the Oregon plant. Then when the Keystone Pipeline project was proposed which would have brought with it jobs and energy security the President blocked it to appease his environmentalist donors. Even though everyone agrees that the project brings jobs and energy security. When government stands in the way of progress you get a crappy economy. That shrinks the middle class.

    Taxing rich people is a distraction. Rich people already shoulder most of the tax burden. We can slam them some more but it wont solve anything. Obama's big "Buffet Rule" raises 4 billion a year in new revenue. So essentially rich people already on average pay around 30% or so in federal income taxes. I make a nice upper middle income salary and my effective rate is around 20%. So rich folk pay more then I do. Again please explain where you get your claime as they seem to contradict reality.

    I had another question for you. In your post you say that Bush/Paulson/Bernake trio created the TARP program which essentially saved our economy from collapse during the housing crisis. Yet I noted that Obama claims on the stump that he saved the economy. Of course the reality is that Paulson led the charge that saved the economy which started under Bush continued under Obama. Which one was it, the Bush administration that created and executed the TARP program or Obama that continued it? You should watch the HBO special "Too Big to Fail" authored by Democrat Andrew Ross Sorkin for the answers.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 06-17-2012 at 12:37 PM.

  20. #20
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU[/url]

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us