Subscribe
Notify of
21 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The disconnect between the way Obama is viewed on this blog and the way he’s viewed by the public is quite remarkable. To read what everyone here has been writing, his first 6 weeks in office have been a major screw up. Yes, he’s succeeded in uniting the GOP base, but he has also united the rest of the country — behind his leadership. Realistically, there isn’t any way that he could have placated a GOP base which feels that he’s moved the country somewhere between socialism and Marxism — by increasing the government’s share of the economy by a whopping 2% and by allowing the tax levels to rise back to those of the Clinton years.

Latest Wall Street Journal Poll:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123612000246123253.html

The poll had bad news for the Republican opposition. By a margin of more than 2-1, Americans trust the Democratic Party over the Republicans to get the country out of the recession. Views of the GOP are near an all-time low. And more than half of all adults say that Republicans in Congress have opposed Mr. Obama’s proposals more to gain political advantage, compared with 30% who say Republicans have done so because they are standing up for their principles.

By a huge margin, people say there is no more bipartisanship in Washington now than in the past. For that, they are most likely to blame President George W. Bush’s administration and congressional Republicans. They put almost none of the blame on congressional Democrats or Mr. Obama.

The survey also found that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings are an all-time high, with 59% of Americans seeing her in a positive light and 22% seeing her negatively, a striking turnaround from very low ratings immediately after she and her husband left the White House.

Also enjoying good numbers is first lady Michelle Obama, with 63% positive and 8% negative ratings. In September, her negative score was 31%, but her popularity has soared with her husband’s, said Mr. Hart. “It’s a his and her brand.”

Also of interest was this:

>>The vast majority of Americans, 84%, think the current economic conditions were inherited and not caused by President Barack Obama, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll to be released today.

>>Further, the majority of respondents don’t believe Obama will be viewed as responsible for the economy’s state until much later in his term. Asked at what point Obama will be “mostly responsible for the country’s economic conditions,” 25% said in one to two years, 18% said in two to three years, and 23% said in more than three years.

>>Just 2% said Obama would shoulder the responsibility in his first six months in office, and 13% said in the first year.<<

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/03/03/wsjnbc-poll-when-will-it-be-obamas-economy/

Reagan’s “prosperity” was a sham. It was paid for with borrowed money. GOP stewardship of the economy resulted in the only increases in the debt/GDP ratio since WWII. And, as for Reagan winning the cold war — now that’s a topic unto itself. Deserves its own thread. Would be stimulating to debate.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Larry, you keep saying the same thing over and over and over again.

That doesn’t make it true.

Put down the crack pipe.

It wasn’t Jimmy Carter that brought about the longest and strongest economic expansion in world history . Yes, Larry, it was Ronald Wilson Reagan. I recall WIN buttons from the Ford Administration, to compensate for the Keynesian policies of the Nixon Administration, and the downright Democrat controlled congress since Eisenhower. The previous Democrat administrations had the social engineering: “New Frontier” and the “Great Society.” The led to ever increasing huge deficits At the end of the Carter Administration, I seem to recall the price of gasoline trebling, 20% raises that were never enough, and suffering through Nightlilne with its Iranian hostage crisis. All of that ended, except for Nightline, with the Reagan Revolution. Today, to paraphrase the Great Ronaldus Magnus, ‘There we go again’ (to socialism.) The Reagan Revolution ended in 1988 with George Bush Sr. heralding the beginning of the dismantling of the Reagaon Revolution. Instituing a new world order, a kinder, gentler nation with a 1000 points of light. Or, some such some nonsense. This same venue was continued through the Clinton years.

Mark Twain said, Lies: Damnable Lies, and statistics. Though, when a Republican, like Bush, assumes the helm, he is responsible for the previous 2 years. Clinton’s prosperity was a sham. Like Bush the elder, he rode the crest of the wave created by the Reagan Revolution. Clintons .com bust, Enron, and the budget balanced from the money “saved” by starving the national defense set us up for 9/11.

The DJIA doesn’t read history. It’s reactions today, are based on what is projected by the current government, yesterday. Not by what happened last year. The key word here is ‘futures.’ Past performance don’t guarantee future results. But, In the past 5 weeks since Jan 20th, the 300 point per week decline is based on the actions of THIS ADMINISTRATION,. of THIS 111th CONGRESS. Besides, there wasn’t much difference between the 110th congress and the 111th congress.

To be quite honest, I don’t believe Obama’s economic principles is the way we should be governing, the government is getting way too much power and it is scary. The market should decide economic issues, not the government.

I saw the “1” vote “Yes”, and I knew that Larry had voted before I even saw the comments.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

GOP stewardship of the economy resulted in the only increases in the debt/GDP ratio since WWII.

Really Larry?

Photobucket

Really?

Photobucket

Keep spreading the myths around. Some people might be buying it, but those of us who are paying attention aren’t falling for it.

Next, you’ll be telling us that Adam Smith was a proponent of progressive income taxes.

Oh, wait……

Larry:

Of course the giddy minorities and the mindless masses that trust the mainstream media for unbiased reporting believe that Obama inherited a massive deficit from Bush: Obama said it, and the media keeps repeating it. But Mike is right (and you know it) – just repeating something doesn’t make it true. Most liberals are happy with his “progressive” social programs, and many of the fence-sitters are still willing to give him more time to prove himself.

In nature, a star reaches its brightest point just before it dies, as it uses up the rest of its fuel in a “last gasp”, so to speak. Then it collapses, and a black hole forms if conditions are right. I think Obama and our economy (and by proximity, the global economy) is heading in that same direction.

Overspending tomorrow’s doubtful prosperity is derelict. America doesn’t have the manufacturing base or sufficient export activity to support the kind of prosperity we need to support Obama’s vision of a socialist economy. Remember that this “only 2% of GDP” is only Obama’s downpayment on the social programs he wants to institute. Is this “downpayment” only 10%, 20%, or ??% of what Obama plans to achieve? When do you stop increasing an expanding government? At 5% of GDP, 10%, 20%?

This type of social expansion is best achieved during boom cycles. Obama is betting the farm and his reputation on near-term prosperity, which is not what most economists are predicting. It’s great to be optimistic with one’s eyes open, but foolish to do so with them closed. Obama is either ignorant or just dismissive of the history of other countries who have tried to spend their way out of recession. We are banking on wild enthusiasm.

Either that, or Obama’s administration and Democratic Party don’t card; they realize that once they add or expand government programs, it’s very difficult to stop them or reign them in. By the time Obama is out of office (assuming term limits don’t get repealed, Barney) if trimming is required, it will probably be done when Republicans are in office; so when the next economic downturn happens, the Democrats can blame the Republicans for “stealing from the poor.” It’s a pretty effective tool, since the media is all too happy to oblige.

Jeff V

Do we really know what Obama wants to do? Does Obama even know what he wants to do? The budget for 2010 has a 4% INCREASE in defense spending, although three weeks ago Obama said he was going to DECREASE defense spending by 10%. Maybe it’s that new math; maybe 4% = 10% somewhere.

Or maybe Obama is just making vague promises to the public, knowing full well that it’s Congress that sets spending limits. Just another politician telling people what they want to hear?

Jeff V

Has anybody seen this story about the Fiscal Responsibility Summit ?

It seems that Obama was saying something like .. Repubs ought to take part in budget negotiations .. then a Repub Rep said they would if they could get Pelosi to give them a seat at the table .. Obama responded with some stuff about obstructionism (i.e. “The Won” wasn’t going to tell Pelosi to give them a seat).

This seems to be the ultimate “Catch-22” when it comes to the Republicans position on the Hill.

Scroll down to the bottom of the actual poll the age, income and political leaning of respondents. Kind of skews the whole poll.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_NewsPoll_030309.pdf

How can you trust those polled when they have no clue as to which party has had control of Congress for the last 2 years?

Tom

Aye, your charts are too small to read (#6) to understand your point. Show us links to their sources.

@blast:

Fixed now blast.

My point is that Larry is perpetuating a falsehood when he says “GOP stewardship of the economy resulted in the only increases in the debt/GDP ratio since WWII.”

Aye, I am not sure what the top graph is supposed to represent, except it does show that on average Republican Presidents had the worse deficits. I find it ironic that it ends in 2000 and the rest is up for estimates, which if you look at the estimates (even the pessimistic ones) we would have had a budget surplus from 1997 through 2009… of course the truth is the surplus was blown and the total deficit was doubled from 2001 to 2008.

@blast:

I am not sure what the top graph is supposed to represent

Larry said that “the only increases in the debt/GDP ratio since WWII” were under GOP stewardship.

Larry’s not telling the truth.

That’s the purpose of the chart.

The projections of a surplus were just that, projections. Those projections failed to take into consideration little things like the Internet bubble or 9/11.

What I find ironic is that the guy you voted for is spending massive, massive, unthinkable amounts of money. He’s spending more money than has ever been spent in our nation’s history.

Yet, all we get from you is the never ending “Bush, Bush, Bush” mantra of blame.

Your needle continues to skip and, quite honestly, it’s more than tiresome.

Aye, well, you would be correct if you were debating the issue on “the only increases in the debt/GDP ratio since WWII” were under GOP stewardship.” but if you look at the graph you see how much more Republicans have spent, especially if you include the broken needle issue. If that graph was recent it would have shown those projections totally blown out of the water and much greater in deficits ever seen in history, which are continuing under Obama. Since you brought up the internet bubble, how long do you think the Clinton Hangover should be calculated, and how long do you think the Bush Hangover should be calculated.

You should take the red pill.

@blast:

Aye, well, you would be correct if you were debating the issue on “the only increases in the debt/GDP ratio since WWII” were under GOP stewardship.” but if you look at the graph you see how much more Republicans have spent, especially if you include the broken needle issue.

Actually, that is all that I am debating.

Larry made a false point, he fabricated and then began spreading a myth if you will, and I refuted his point.

You’re attempting to readjust the discussion to the only tune in your jukebox.

I’m not interested in discussing the image in the rear view mirror when the cliff Obie is leading us toward lies ahead of us.

As to bubbles and hangovers, that’s an issue that you’ll have to discuss with someone who’s interested in discussing it.

I’m not.

Aye, I rest my case. You can’t acknowledge the past 8 years, but you can bitch a ton about the past 30+ days. I have been bitching about how poorly Bush managed the economy for a long time… even before Sept 08 when it tottally began to tank.

THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH FOR A TERRIFIC 8 years is all I get out of you.

@blast:

Please allow me to be perhaps the first to say this to you today:

Blast, you’re full of shit.

Go back and read my posts here.

Over and over and over again I’ve been critical of President Bush.

Not just once or twice but over and over and over and over.

Basically, blast it’s like this, you’ve been here awhile, and, like a piece of gum, we’ve chewed all the flavor out of you and, to be perfectly frank, I’m no longer interested in anything you have to say.

@blast: As usual, you are attempting to hijack this thread with another of your egocentric diatribes.

You’ve had your say now knock it off.

Ummm blast, FYI Bush is not the president anymore.
Larry, try some anti-psych meds. Seriously.