Obama greater failure than Bush

[JBJoe]

That may be true, but you can't pay the bill with borrowed money like Obama is trying to do.

But that isn't a question I see as worth asking. The question is: can you escape an economic collapse without borrowing money? During the last huge economic expansion between '03 and '06 we kept borrowing. If we don't borrow now, are we just going to make a bad situation worse? "Paying the bill" shouldn't be our top concern, our top concern should be "not losing the house."

 

[Veritas]

The election if still pretty far off. If the economy turns around Reps don't stand a chance. Also, generic ballots don't have a high accuracy rate as they ask the individual to cast a pretend national ballot when in reality they case a local ballot. All politics are local. When is comes to the election someone in PA doesn't really care what Nancy Pelosi is saying.

Generic ballots just ask which party you would vote for...not a specific candidate. The point being that the voting public is growing more weary of the Democratic party.

Lets ask the question at the end of Obama's Presidency and compare it to the end of Bush's Presidency. That will be more representative.

Bush inherited a much better economy than Obama. Obama inherited the 2nd worst economic meltdown and two wars. Hardly apples to apples.

Keep beating that drum. It's already beginning to sound like an excuse.

I'm curious as to what McCain would have done so radically different that would have turned houses back into magical ATM machines and put a couple Ghawar-sized oilfields under Texas and Pennsylvania.

It's one thing to bash Obama--and I'll agree his economic policies have been rather lackluster--but it's not like the Right has some shining, innovative alternative to offer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: for much of the 20th century, America lived a life in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics, using "free" energy and borrowed money. Now the bill is due.

McCain IMO would have been better but not the best by a long shot. He's really more of a D than a R anyway. What we really needed now was Reagan type who would not only solve the economic problems we face but unite the country behind him and his ideas. Curiously, Obama who billed himself as a "uniter not a divider" has done just the opposite.

No it isn't. With only 6 months of an administration to review, nobody really has enough information or hindsight to make a good evaluation of this question. It was true for the 32% who called Bush a failure and it is true now for the 37% who call Obama a failure.

What the question really measures, at this point, is the level of discontent among those who did not support your presidency. Within the 95% confidence interval, the numbers are fairly close.

Huh?

Wait till you compare the poll numbers to after the 9/11 attack when Bush's numbers skyrocketed. Using that logic, Bush is the best president ever compared to Obama being one of the worst.

That's why I specifically said these numbers for Bush were PRE-09/11.

 

[Ringo84]

Right....Obama's a "failure" after seven months in office.
Ringo

 

[chaz345]

But that isn't a question I see as worth asking. The question is: can you escape an economic collapse without borrowing money? During the last huge economic expansion between '03 and '06 we kept borrowing. If we don't borrow now, are we just going to make a bad situation worse? "Paying the bill" shouldn't be our top concern, our top concern should be "not losing the house."

The thing is eventually someone is going to lose the house. If not us, the our kids or grandkids. The longer the eventual crash is put off by borrowing, the deeper and longer it will be.
Said big huge crash may be able to be avoided if the money borrowed during the downturn were paid back when good times return, but that's never been the case. When things get better, government spending increases to spend every penny of the increased revenue, and the debt from the deficit spending gets ignored. We can't keep doing that forever.

 

[Billnew]

The poll does not say what the title suggests.

Obama isn't considered a failure. majority say he is doing well(51%)
Bush was doing better, but as others have said, Bush had an easy ride up to a month from now.(9-11-01)
Its far to early to say Obama is a failure, or a success.
Up to this point I think we can agree, Obama wins the prize for spending the most.
But will the USA profit from this spending? Hasn't yet, but we'll see.

 

[Veritas]

The poll does not say what the title suggests.

Obama isn't considered a failure. majority say he is doing well(51%)
Bush was doing better, but as others have said, Bush had an easy ride up to a month from now.(9-11-01)
Its far to early to say Obama is a failure, or a success.
Up to this point I think we can agree, Obama wins the prize for spending the most.
But will the USA profit from this spending? Hasn't yet, but we'll see.

Yes it does. More VIEW Obama as a failure than did Bush at the same point in their presidencies. Whether he actually is or isn't (and I think he is), the issue is what people's opinions are. We know that many presidents are poll driven (Bush wasn't too much) but Obama like Clinton is. Perhaps these polls coming out that show Obama slipping will force him to change course. That remains to be seen, especially on health care and deficit spending where his numbers are really dwindling.

 

[JBJoe]

The thing is eventually someone is going to lose the house. If not us, the our kids or grandkids. The longer the eventual crash is put off by borrowing, the deeper and longer it will be.
Said big huge crash may be able to be avoided if the money borrowed during the downturn were paid back when good times return, but that's never been the case. When things get better, government spending increases to spend every penny of the increased revenue, and the debt from the deficit spending gets ignored. We can't keep doing that forever.

On this, we can certainly agree. If the debt grows faster than the valuation of the dollar, eventually the principal+interest on the debt exceeds revenue. However the problem in the here-and-now is: if we don't deficit spend, will we send the economy into an unrecoverable tailspin?

I don't know the answer. I do know that changes in economic policy do not show up in the actual economy for years. The seeds of this economic downturn were planted clear back in 2002, the point of no return came around '05 or '06 and the full realization came in '08. Even if Congress, in 2006, had opted to return to tight regulation of the banking industry it was too late - such a correction would have arrived too late (though the downturn certainly would have been blamed on that regulation).

 

[JBJoe]

Yes it does. More VIEW Obama as a failure than did Bush at the same point in their presidencies. Whether he actually is or isn't (and I think he is), the issue is what people's opinions are. We know that many presidents are poll driven (Bush wasn't too much) but Obama like Clinton is. Perhaps these polls coming out that show Obama slipping will force him to change course. That remains to be seen, especially on health care and deficit spending where his numbers are really dwindling.

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.

 

[Anovah]

That's why I specifically said these numbers for Bush were PRE-09/11.

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.

 

[XTE]

Yes it does. More VIEW Obama as a failure than did Bush at the same point in their presidencies. Whether he actually is or isn't (and I think he is), the issue is what people's opinions are. We know that many presidents are poll driven (Bush wasn't too much) but Obama like Clinton is. Perhaps these polls coming out that show Obama slipping will force him to change course. That remains to be seen, especially on health care and deficit spending where his numbers are really dwindling.

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.

 

[Anovah]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Anovah]

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]

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

Argh! Beat me to it *shakes fist*

 

[XTE]

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]

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]

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]

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