Times poll: 75% blame Bush’s policies for deterioriating economy

[big kahuna1]

Wars, generally, help the economy, actually.

I'm not surprised by this poll...but things were doing quite well up until Nov 2006. It's been all down-hill from there.

You are absolutely CORRECT Sir (or Mam)...on both points!

 

[corndog]

People shoudl speak out on Obama, but they need new tactics. The worst lately is right wing media trying to extend his term to even before he took office so he can be blamed for the stuff that happened during 2008. I can't stand the guys economic policy either, but that kind of crap just destroys any credibility other people have against Obama. Same goes for the labels like "Furor" and "Comrade". Please stop, you're not helping.

I don't know what the "right wing media" is, but if you understood what a stock price represents, you wouldn't make these comments.

 

[ntsammy5]

OK - Lets actually set the record straight on Congress


104 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
105 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
106 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
107 th Democrats contol Senate & Republicans control House
108 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
109 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
110 th Democrats contol Both Senate & House

This is now the 111 th Congress and Democrats contol Senate & House

 

[corndog]

Really? Have you ever studied economics??

The reason we pulled out of the depression was because of war. War creates jobs. Weapons manufacturers, technology manufacturers, all have business because of contracts through the US Government. Where do you think all the money we spend on war goes?

Not to mention all the jobs that are created within the military while at war.

Also, while over there, our men and women have to be fed, clothed, etc. All those things are creating contracts with AMERICAN companies. Directly helping the American economy.

Have you ever studied economics? War destroys wealth, it does not create it. You're arguing the fallacy of the broken window.

 

[jimmiej]

So far, the "war" is 13 times less expensive than the stimulus bill...and that does not include the interest.

I bet if you ask the same set of people polled what an ARM is or who is Chris Dodd or Barney Frank, or heck even Fannie Mae, they couldnt answer the question.


Everyone wants to talk about "the last 8 years" with regards to the economy, but they forget GWB entered the office in a recession, dealt with the blow to the markets after 9-11 and STILL had success with the economy for 5.5 years (up until the elections of November 2006).

Make no mistake, though, he authorized waaaay to much spending. But it will not be near the spending we are going to be subjected to now.

 

[onelilspark]

Have you ever studied economics? War destroys wealth, it does not create it. You're arguing the fallacy of the broken window.

Ok. Educate me. How does war destroy wealth? I gave you examples on how war creates jobs and thus supports the economy. You threw out a claim with no back up. Support it.

My boyfriend's company is contracted by the government. When there is war, they hire (how he got his job.) When there is none, they either have to lay off or they have to put a hold on hiring. There are many companies in the US like this. Tell me how that does not relate to the health of the economy.

 

[ntsammy5]

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession.

That would have been two months AFTER the Bush inauguration - he didn't come intyo office with one.

My point is that this has been a disaster waiting to happoen since Regan - The one thing that Bush did that pushed it over the edge was his lack of regulatory oversight - Chaiman Cox of the SEC was the biggest reason - he never saw a reason to regulate - look at the Madoff scandal and the CDS situation. His lack of oversight borders on the criminal.

 

[PeterPan09]

People blame Bush because he was the last one in office when everything went down hill. It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether he could have done anything or not, he still gets the blame because he was occupying the Oval when people started to see their 401k's tank, their jobs go away and their home values plummet.

It stinks for him, but that's how it always is.

 

[Mikelly1221]

I was trying to bash President Bush.

I was trying to refresh my memory on steps that President Bush used to try to avert the deline of our economy when I happened upon the Times poll.

In 2003 President Bush passed the Jobs Growth Tax Relief.

Most of us got a tax cut of $289 for the year.

The top 1% (those making over $1 million) recieved a tax credit of $30,000 each.

In 2008 most of you wh omade under $100,000 recieved a stim check up to $600 each , $1,200 a couple with an extra $300 for each child .

Of then after stating our economy was strong all of a sudden with no warning from the Bush adminstration it was critical that we bail the banks out because they were failing !

Is your first sentence a typo? Just wondering-didn't see it corrected.

People blame Bush because he was the last one in office when everything went down hill. It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether he could have done anything or not, he still gets the blame because he was occupying the Oval when people started to see their 401k's tank, their jobs go away and their home values plummet.

It stinks for him, but that's how it always is.

I completely agree, and the reverse is also true; the President in office when the economy recovers gets all the credit.

 

[Sanchez]

His lack of oversight borders on the criminal.

Criminal? Even taking as truth your reasons for the current economic woes you go to far in making the President responsible for oversight. I guess that we can now hold President Obama responsible for every dollar of the stimulus package that is misspent or wasted. Given the way our governemnt mismanages I guess the case of United States v. Obama will begin sometime in the fall.

 

[corndog]

Ok. Educate me. How does war destroy wealth? I gave you examples on how war creates jobs and thus supports the economy. You threw out a claim with no back up. Support it.

My boyfriend's company is contracted by the government. When there is war, they hire (how he got his job.) When there is none, they either have to lay off or they have to put a hold on hiring. There are many companies in the US like this. Tell me how that does not relate to the health of the economy.

OK. What happens in a war? That is, what is the objective of war, and how is that objective accomplished?

 

[ntsammy5]

I guess that we can now hold President Obama responsible for every dollar of the stimulus package that is misspent or wasted.

And we will. The Bush issue, is that it is his job to regulate - he appointed people who wouldn't - that's definitely his responsibility and Cox was a joke.

Oh sorry I see what you mean - I meant Cox's lack of oversight.

 

[SSAVL]

Hey, if Gore or Kerry won when they ran, we would still be in the exact same position we are in now.......financially anyway.

 

[AndyLL]

OK - Lets actually set the record straight on Congress


104 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
105 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
106 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
107 th Democrats contol Senate & Republicans control House
108 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
109 th Republicans contol Both Senate & House
110 th Democrats contol Both Senate & House

This is now the 111 th Congress and Democrats contol Senate & House

Slight correction
107 th Democrats contol Senate & Republicans control House
It was actaully a tie for most of the session. Jeffords, a republican, caucused with the Democrates for a year. ( not the same as having a democrate)

110 th Democrats contol Both Senate & House

With the 2 indepedents the Democrats has a 1 person majority. But again cacucusing with the Democrates is not the same as being a democrate. Lieberman is a case in point.

 

[Sherwin]

Hey, if Gore or Kerry won when they ran, we would still be in the exact same position we are in now.......financially anyway.

Thank you!

It was a housing bubble. A bubble. It was gonna bust either way.

 

[Geoff_M]

Slight correction
107 th Democrats contol Senate & Republicans control House
It was actaully a tie for most of the session. Jeffords, a republican, caucused with the Democrates for a year. ( not the same as having a democrate)

110 th Democrats contol Both Senate & House

With the 2 indepedents the Democrats has a 1 person majority. But again cacucusing with the Democrates is not the same as being a democrate. Lieberman is a case in point.

Two questions:
1) Who was Senate Majority leader in the 107th Congress?
2) Who was the Senate Majority leader in the 110th Congress?

Stop trying to kid us...

 

[onelilspark]

OK. What happens in a war? That is, what is the objective of war, and how is that objective accomplished?

The objective of war is to win. In order to do that, we must outsmart our opponent. We can accomplish this by having better weapons (oo, research, building, welding, JOBS!) and better technology (ooo! ditto!) And then when we have the stronger weapons and technology, we can better equip our American troops to go over and fight the enemy. When we send them over, we also send them over with our food...from American companies. Thus employing hundreds, if not thousands more. In turn, helping the American economy.

I still fail to see how it destroys wealth in the American economy.

 

[corndog]

The objective of war is to win. In order to do that, we must outsmart our opponent. We can accomplish this by having better weapons (oo, research, building, welding, JOBS!) and better technology (ooo! ditto!) And then when we have the stronger weapons and technology, we can better equip our American troops to go over and fight the enemy. When we send them over, we also send them over with our food...from American companies. Thus employing hundreds, if not thousands more. In turn, helping the American economy.

I still fail to see how it destroys wealth in the American economy.

What do our better equipped soldiers do with our better and stronger weapons?

If our better equipped soldiers were not "over" fighting the enemy, where would they be?

What food would they be eating?

 

[bicker]

Hey, if Gore or Kerry won when they ran, we would still be in the exact same position we are in now.......financially anyway.

Proof?

I don't necessarily doubt what you're saying, except your saying so without any real reason to believe it, doesn't make any sense.

 

[onelilspark]

What do our better equipped soldiers do with our better and stronger weapons?

If our better equipped soldiers were not "over" fighting the enemy, where would they be?

What food would they be eating?

Well, they kill people, it happens in war. It's bad, yes. But it happens. Has nothing to do with the economy though.

I don't know. But what I do know, is that a lot of our soldiers join the military for a way to pay for schooling. So now we have a more educated society. Which is important because now the US is moving towards a more service based society than labor based.

And as for food: you're talking about different divisions. When you have a war going on, companies have to have a specialized division that deals specifically with the military. That creates jobs. Otherwise, they'd be eating the same food as you and I, and those jobs are already taken.

And btw: by asking questions, that doesn't tell me how wars destroy wealth. You're just letting me prove my point. But you know, if you want me to keep doing that, by all means, keep asking