Obama greater failure than Bush

Anovah · #31 6th August 2009, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by lemmings

Originally, my witty response to this thread was going to be wait 36 more days. But yeah, it's going to be about a year before Obama can even come close to beating Bush's approval rating. That might actually become a campaign issue come the midterm elections assuming that the Birthers run out of steam.

It is interesting how Bush is being used as a gold standard of failure. It's as if to say "Obama is so bad he's polling worse than Bush...I mean come on...BUSH"

Veritas · #32 6th August 2009, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Anovah

Of course they are, why would you compare Bush's numbers to a month Obama hasn't even been President in yet. And even then, why wouldn't you? Was there some sort of different circumstances we should take into account? Hmmm....

According to your logic almost every other President in US history was a failure in their ninth month compared to Bush.

These polls are conducted all the time on presidents. It's not my poll btw. The only reason it's "news" is because the public's perception fueled by the State-run media is that Obama is not only popular, he is invincible. I guess we're starting to discover otherwise. I don't blame you for sticking up for the guy though. I'd probably do the same if it were an R pres.

Originally Posted by JBJoe

Once again, as indicated by your massively insightful response of "huh?", you do not understand how to interpret the numbers you have.

All this poll shows is the depth of feeling of his opposition.

I can read fine, thank you very much. You just don't agree with what is written.

Originally Posted by XTE

If you think the guy is "EVIL," then you probably considered him a failure from day -117.

You want another R like Reagan to be a "uniter." That's hardly surprising.

Reagan taxed the rich much more than Obama is currently considering. Obama wants it back at pre-Bush years level. That is the George Jr. years. He doesn't want to repeal the tax cuts George Sr. gave himself, or the few that Clinton gave himself as well. Let's try taking a heavy dose of facts and considering human beings, well.... HUMAN, not evil.

Some people mistake a misunderstanding as evil. It helps motivate them to do things they want done. Or, it helps motivate them to do things others want them to do.

1. Where did I say Obama was "evil"?

2. Reagan lowered tax rates dramatically from a top rate of 70% to 50% along with an across the board cut of 25 % for all others.

The American Spectator : Kennedy-Reagan v. Bush-Obama

In 1981, Reagan cut the top income tax rate of 70% to 50%, with a 25% across the board reduction in income tax rates for everyone else. Then, in the 1986 tax reform, he cut the top rate to 28%, with only one other rate of 15% for everyone else. Reagan also cut corporate income tax rates.
By 1982, just before the tax cuts were fully phased in, the economy took off on a 25 year economic boom, what Art Laffer and Steve Moore called "the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet." Steve Forbes called it "an economic golden age." .....

If only Obama would follow in Reagan's footsteps and enact tax-cuts for all. Not only would the economy recover, tax revenue would increase. But he can't afford to do this not only because of his massive spending, but mostly because it sounds too Reaganesque. However, if he's looking for Democratic inspiration, he could turn to JKF who did the same thing back in the 60's....worked then, too!

Veritas · #33 6th August 2009, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Anovah

It is interesting how Bush is being used as a gold standard of failure. It's as if to say "Obama is so bad he's polling worse than Bush...I mean come on...BUSH"

Strange isn't it? Even stranger is that Obama's poll numbers for this point in his presidency are 10th among the last 12 presidents. Bush is starting to look a lot better every day!

DaisyDay · #34 6th August 2009, 05:59 PM

Plus, Bush hadn't actually failed six months into his presidency; neither has.

Anovah · #35 6th August 2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Veritas

These polls are conducted all the time on presidents. It's not my poll btw. The only reason it's "news" is because the public's perception fueled by the State-run media is that Obama is not only popular, he is invincible. I guess we're starting to discover otherwise. I don't blame you for sticking up for the guy though. I'd probably do the same if it were an R pres.

I really don't think like that and I hope you wouldn't defend someone for the sole reason that they have an R after their name and likewise, I myself wouldn't want to condemn someone for simply having an R after their name. In fact I'm certainly willing to give Bush credit here in that he had a lot of support. Actually, I think one of the reasons people were disappointed with him later on is because they feel he squandered all that support.

But really, you have to admit there's stark contrasts in the issues and circumstances here and even that aside you couldn't call either presidency a failure this early in their term.

Lastly, I know you said you just wanted to see what the spin would be but I'm getting the sense you want to have an actual conversation here so...thanks

Anovah · #36 6th August 2009, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by aisy_Day

Plus, Bush hadn't actually failed six months into his presidency; neither has.

Argh! Beat me to it *shakes fist*

XTE · #37 6th August 2009, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Anovah

I really don't think like that and I hope you wouldn't defend someone for the sole reason that they have an R after their name and likewise, I myself wouldn't want to condemn someone for simply having an R after their name. In fact I'm certainly willing to give Bush credit here in that he had a lot of support. Actually, I think one of the reasons people were disappointed with him later on is because they feel he squandered all that support.

But really, you have to admit there's stark contrasts in the issues and circumstances here and even that aside you couldn't call either presidency a failure this early in their term.

Lastly, I know you said you just wanted to see what the spin would be but I'm getting the sense you want to have an actual conversation here so...thanks

Sorry Anovah, but anyone that uses the term "public perception fueled by the State-Run Media" isn't trying to have a conversation with others. That right there tells you they already consider the opposing sides perception messed up and not worthy of listening to.

Certainly other parts of the OP tend to tell me she is willing to have dialogue finally, but those little things I mentioned in the paragraph above really bring all of that down. This looks like more of the same to me...

Anovah · #38 6th August 2009, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by XTE

Sorry Anovah, but anyone that uses the term "public perception fueled by the State-Run Media" isn't trying to have a conversation with others. That right there tells you they already consider the opposing sides perception messed up and not worthy of listening to.

Certainly other parts of the OP tend to tell me she is willing to have dialogue finally, but those little things I mentioned in the paragraph above really bring all of that down. This looks like more of the same to me...

Maybe I'm just being optimistic but I'd like to think most people are decent people deep down who are willing to have an honest discussion when shown some respect. Also I don't mind a little glibness here and there...gotta have some fun too... but I hope most do so out of good naturedness.

On the other hand I see what you're saying in that some can get so used to vilifying and disagreeing for the sake of "defending your team" so to speak, that it can be difficult to break free of the combative and rude nature.

I'm hopeful that love and respect is a good cure for that ailment though (in between all the flippancy of course

)

TerranceL · #39 7th August 2009, 12:41 AM

It's silly to compare the first six months of either man.

During Bush's first six months he still pretended to be the man he was on when he was running for office, someone who respected the concepts of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. It wasn't until 911 that he began to show his true colors.

The only point to this poll is to point at the other side (folks who vote for Obama) and say "nanny nanny boo boo". Yes I know, mature. And they would have a point if they hadn't put forth a candidate of such horrid quality as McCain. Lets not forget McCain was the guy who in 2000 was too liberal and not a real conservative. In 2004 McCain was too liberal, not a real conservative and not only that, he may have conspired with the enemy in vietnam! 2008 comes around and now he's a Maverick and the right man for the job??

Please.

It didn't matter which side won the election, in the end we all lose.

I'll wait to see how this poll look at the end of the term.

brinny · #40 7th August 2009, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by kermit

There's a few things. The poll does not list the margin of error. Normal is 4-5%. Which makes the numbers a statistical tie. Secondly, at this point in Bush's presidency nothing much was happening. The economy was down, but not terrible. We were at relative peace. At this point it seem the Bush era was going to be farily unnotable. Contrast that with the disasters Obama is dealing with. It's more accurate to compare Obama to Bush a year ago.

see? we knew you'd come up with something. Good job