Poll: Bush still blamed for economy

[SirJosephPorter]

This is an interesting poll. 31 % of Americans say that Bush is responsible for the current state of American economy, only 7% blame Obama.

23% blame Wall Street, 13 % blame the Congress. If the economy doesn’t improve, that still isn’t necessarily bad news for Democrats. 47% say that Bush and the Republicans will be to blame, while 45% say that Obama and the Democrats will be to blame.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

Republicans better hope that economy does not improve by November. If the economy does improve by November, their good fortune may take a turn for the worse. People still don’t trust the Republicans. The long arm of Bush still continues to haunt them.

 

[eh1eh]

Umm, well, it is his fault. Obama didn't do it this year.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, if this poll had been conducted by Rassmussen, you - in your inimitable style - would dismiss it as phony and unreliable.

Well, I am not as close-minded and bigoted as you are, so I will give the poll some credence.

But, tell me, or perhaps make a prediction: when will Bush-Blaming stop? EVER?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Umm, well, it is his fault. Obama didn't do it this year.

Well, depends upon what people think in 2012. There is every indication that economy should be in good shape by then.

But of more immediate interest would be what happens in 2010.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter, if this poll had been conducted by Rassmussen, you - in your inimitable style - would dismiss it as phony and unreliable.

Well, I am not as close-minded and bigoted as you are, so I will give the poll some credence.

But, tell me, or perhaps make a prediction: when will Bush-Blaming stop? EVER?

What are you talking about, YJ? This is new York Times/CBS poll, where did you read Rasmussen? Didn’t you read the link?

One, Rasmussen would not conduct a poll like this and two, even if he did conduct such a poll, he wouldn’t publish any results that show Bush and Republicans in a bad light.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Scrach that.

 

[YukonJack]

Calling all posters:

Read my post. Then read SirJosephPorter's post quoting my post. Then read his post.

Careful now!!

Can this guy even read a simple statement?

Are his biased opinions worth a pinch of coon s**t?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I said I misunderstood your post, YJ. I had to leave, so I read your post in a hurry and posted my reply in a hurry.

 

[YukonJack]

"I said I misunderstood your post, YJ. I had to leave, so I read your post in a hurry and posted my reply in a hurry."

You edited your post to add that meaningless sentence.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Obama is in the clear on this issue. Certainly very little blame can be attached to a president who was not in power when the US recession began. Given that, however, Bush is not entirely to blame either. The roots of the current recession can be traced back to Ronald Reagan and his odoption of the policies advocated by Milton Friedman. What Bush can be blamed for, along with his father and Bill Clinton, is doing so little to change the policies begun by Reagan - the so-called Reganomics that proved to be so unsuccessful in so may areas. He can also be blamed for the foolish decision to cut taxes while at the same time increasing spending, a policy that makes very little sense for anyone who can do basic math.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

No kidding..............................................................

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Reaganomics was a huge big scam perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. Reagan borrowed massively and went on a spending spree. At that time there was very little public debt, and people did not realize the danger of deficit spending.

So in the short term Reagan was able to give an appearance of prosperity and he won the second term based upon that. But that was similar to a family going on a spending spree, buying a new house, a yacht etc. on credit card.

Bush continued the borrow and spend philosophy and it was left to Clinton to straighten the matters out.

But I think Reaganomics was what started USA on the path to borrow and spend.

 

[lone wolf]

...Bush continued the borrow and spend philosophy and it was left to Clinton to straighten the matters out....

Wasn't Clinton in before Bush?

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Clinton left the American Economy in far better shape the Bush..............

 

[lone wolf]

Clinton left the American Economy in far better shape the Bush..............

Clinton didn't inherit whatever Bush left behind as Porter's post indicates.

 

[countryboy]

Clinton didn't inherit whatever Bush left behind as Porter's post indicates.

Clinton was "sandwiched between the two Bushes"... a position with which I'm sure he was quite comfortable. :lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Clinton was "sandwiched between the two Bushes"... a position with which I'm sure he was quite comfortable. :lol:

I keep forgetting about Daddy Bush. Maybe it's because he had a bit more on the ball than his offspring.

 

[countryboy]

I keep forgetting about Daddy Bush. Maybe it's because he had a bit more on the ball than his offspring.

Yeah, I guess we tend to take the good (or better, at least) ones for granted...human nature.

 

[lone wolf]

Yeah, I guess we tend to take the good (or better, at least) ones for granted...human nature.

Ah well.... It's not the first time I've eaten a bit of crow.

 

[taxslave]

I would think that the only Americans that don't blame junior for the economic mess are the few that profited from government spending.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Americans are loud, fast talking slick hustlers, not all, but a significant number of them are and they approved of Reaganomics etc. Life in the fast lane, what's not to like?