PDA

View Full Version : Voters say "Stop blaming Bush!"



djones520
08-12-2010, 02:47 PM
Despite more voters faulting former President Bush's policies for the country's economic woes, most American voters think it is time for President Obama to stop blaming Bush.

Nearly half of voters — 47 percent — think Bush's policies are mostly to blame for the economic difficulties the country is having today, compared to 32 percent who think Obama's policies are to blame.

Even so, fully 76 percent of voters think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility for the condition of the economy. That's more than four times as many as think it is right to continue to place the blame on Bush (18 percent).

A majority of Democrats, who overwhelmingly think Bush is responsible for the economy (82 percent), think it is time for Obama to quit blaming Bush (57 percent).

Overall, 55 percent of those who think Bush's policies are to blame think it's time for Obama to take responsibility.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/12/fox-news-poll-percent-say-time-obama-responsibility/

76% is a vast majority. The word is in. Voter's ain't buying the "Blame Bush" strategy anymore.

Other point. 88% still believe we are in a recession. 48% of that believe it is worsening.

malloc
08-12-2010, 02:59 PM
I don't buy the "blame Bush" mantra for the recession. If the mantra was "Blame Bush, his Republican Congress, and his later Democrat Congress", I'd agree with that. The Congress writes the laws no?

They were warned about the housing bubble. They had to be completely ignorant to not see this coming when people like Schiff, Ron Paul, all of Mises, the FFF, and all sorts of conservative and libertarian think tanks saw this coming. Both Bush's democratic and conservative congresses had all the warnings, and all the time to restructure Fannie and Freddie, and rethink the "everyone should own a home" strategy. They also had plenty of time to re-instate Glass-Steagall, and look into Fed policies which were keeping interest rates artificially low.

If Bush were presented with a bill to break up, and completely privatize Fannie and Freddie, and remove them from HUD "fair housing for the poor" requirements, and he'd vetoed it, he could be solely blamed. If he was presented with a bill to reinstate glass-steagall or audit the Fed's OMO's or interest rate policy minutes, and he'd vetoed it, then he could be blamed solely.

lacarnut
08-12-2010, 03:01 PM
Psst. Stupidicus, We We, Shoe, etc....are you listening.

Obama was HIRED to fix unemployment and the economy. He has failed miserably.

Molon Labe
08-12-2010, 03:50 PM
The Congress writes the laws no?

They were warned about the housing bubble. They had to be completely ignorant to not see this coming when people like Schiff, Ron Paul, all of Mises, the FFF, and all sorts of conservative and libertarian think tanks saw this coming. Both Bush's democratic and conservative congresses had all the warnings, and all the time to restructure Fannie and Freddie, and rethink the "everyone should own a home" strategy. They also had plenty of time to re-instate Glass-Steagall, and look into Fed policies which were keeping interest rates artificially low.

+1

And Congress ignored it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Dan D. Doty
08-12-2010, 03:54 PM
ITS BUSH'S FAULT is the Moonbat mantra because they can't responciblity for things ( and never have).

Lager
08-12-2010, 03:55 PM
Voters say, "Stop blaming Bush". Satanicus and the rest say, "We can't help it, we really don't have any other options in the playbook". :D

Arroyo_Doble
08-12-2010, 03:59 PM
I think Reagan blamed Carter through his second inaugural address so it's nothing new.

Lager
08-12-2010, 04:03 PM
I think it could be argued that Reagan fixed some of the probllems that Carter had at the end of his term. I also think that Reagan functioned pretty well as a leader. I would like Obama to be successful. I hope things get better, even if he takes the credit. I know it's only two years in, yet he doesn't seem very effective so far in leading anyone, anywhere.

Arroyo_Doble
08-12-2010, 04:08 PM
I think it could be argued that Reagan fixed some of the probllems that Carter had at the end of his term. I also think that Reagan functioned pretty well as a leader. I would like Obama be successful, and I know it's only two years in. But he doesn't seem very effective so far in leading anyone, anywhere.

Aside from the assassination attempt bump, Reagan's popularity was in steady decline up until (I believe) almost two full years into his first term. The recession that started shortly after he took office was difficult (as well as the unemployment). Luckily, he had more resources for his Keynesian activities and could increase spending while cutting taxes without facing crippling deficits. Obama doesn't have that luxury since he was staring down the face of a trillion dollar deficit his first year in office.

It is a pickle, no doubt. I figure he has at least another year before America gives up on him.

Rebel Yell
08-12-2010, 04:11 PM
This article is a lie. Everyone knows it's all Bush's fault. That's it. That's my argument. Prove me wrong.

NJCardFan
08-12-2010, 05:21 PM
Aside from the assassination attempt bump, Reagan's popularity was in steady decline up until (I believe) almost two full years into his first term. The recession that started shortly after he took office was difficult (as well as the unemployment). Luckily, he had more resources for his Keynesian activities and could increase spending while cutting taxes without facing crippling deficits. Obama doesn't have that luxury since he was staring down the face of a trillion dollar deficit his first year in office.

It is a pickle, no doubt. I figure he has at least another year before America gives up on him.

Big difference being that Reagan didn't have a Republican congress to work with did he. He had a Democrat congress and senate to contend with and he still did more to help the economy than Obumble could possibly dream of. Reagan put money back into the hands and pockets of the people, where it belongs. Your ilk wants to take more away.

Arroyo_Doble
08-12-2010, 05:26 PM
Big difference being that Reagan didn't have a Republican congress to work with did he. He had a Democrat [sic] congress and senate to contend with and he still did more to help the economy than Obumble could possibly dream of.

The Congress was split with the House being Democratic and the Senate being Republican in Reagan's first term.


Reagan put money back into the hands and pockets of the people, where it belongs. Your ilk wants to take more away.

Yes, of course.

BadCat
08-12-2010, 05:33 PM
Aside from the assassination attempt bump, Reagan's popularity was in steady decline up until (I believe) almost two full years into his first term. The recession that started shortly after he took office was difficult (as well as the unemployment). Luckily, he had more resources for his Keynesian activities and could increase spending while cutting taxes without facing crippling deficits. Obama doesn't have that luxury since he was staring down the face of a trillion dollar deficit his first year in office.

It is a pickle, no doubt. I figure he has at least another year before America gives up on him.

I figure we ALREADY gave up on him.

Arroyo_Doble
08-12-2010, 05:35 PM
I figure we ALREADY gave up on him.

I disagree. I believe you are part of that segment of the population that never gave him a chance to begin with.

malloc
08-12-2010, 05:43 PM
I disagree. I believe you are part of that segment of the population that never gave him a chance to begin with.

I was part of that population from first time I heard "spread the wealth around", up to "fundamentally transform America". Being the econ nerd that I am, my immediate thought was, "Oh, great, here's someone who believes he is smarter than history, and that mathematics don't apply to the U.S. economy." Obama wasn't shy about the direction he wanted to take our economy, and very economic system, and I opposed that from the beginning.

PoliCon
08-12-2010, 05:57 PM
I disagree. I believe you are part of that segment of the population that never gave him a chance to begin with.

He had his chance when he was campaigning - he lied. He dissembled. He made vague and false promises. His preferred policies are ones we already know to be destructive and failures and yet he's pushing them anyhow. You think I should give him a chance to push forward with that agenda? :rolleyes: No thanks. When and if he finally does something right - I'll give the man credit, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit here holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Zeus
08-12-2010, 05:58 PM
It's in the playbook. Breaking the economy brings you 1 step closer to implementing socialism.

m00
08-12-2010, 06:01 PM
I think Reagan blamed Carter through his second inaugural address so it's nothing new.

Oh hey, it's been awhile.

PoliCon
08-12-2010, 06:07 PM
I think Reagan blamed Carter through his second inaugural address so it's nothing new.

wow. Lets allow that this statement is true. You wanna justify how the press, the congress, the DNC, and ALL of the left have spent the last 2 years blaming everything wrong on Bush - not to mention that 8 years prior when he was actually in office - You wanna compare that to ONE speech by Reagan?? :rolleyes:

Odysseus
08-12-2010, 07:50 PM
I think Reagan blamed Carter through his second inaugural address so it's nothing new.
Reagan had more class than that. He never whined about inheriting problems but always spoke about solving them. He was upbeat throughout his tenure.

I disagree. I believe you are part of that segment of the population that never gave him a chance to begin with.
There is a difference between expecting failure and wanting it. We all gave him a chance to be a decent, honorable and effective president, we just didn't expect it, because unlike you, we knew enough of his background to anticipate Obama's inability to govern. Nothing in his past prepared him to run the Executive Branch, and his political and economic philosophy were always antithetical to the US Constitution and economic system. It just took a while for the reality to filter through the media smokescreen.

Hawkgirl
08-12-2010, 09:07 PM
<puts on Stupidicus hat>So 18% of americans know it's Bush's Fault..do you deny that americans know it's Bush's fault? Did you read the article you posted? Prove to me that americans don't believe it's Bush's fault when that link clearly shows it is. <Removes Stupidicus hat>

lacarnut
08-12-2010, 10:34 PM
I disagree. I believe you are part of that segment of the population that never gave him a chance to begin with.

Obama was hired to fix the economy. Not one on his economic team has had any experience in the private sector. He was doomed to fail from the start. The private sector is scared of the regulations and taxes the Democrats and Obama are going to impose on them. As long as business views Obama as anti-business, they will not hire. Whose fault is that? Not mine or any Republican. In conclusion, the O and the Democrats do not know how to create private sector jobs.