+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/17/2018 09:03 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.958 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/02/2010 06:28 AM ID: 83628 Permalink   

50 Percent of Americans Think Obama Deserves Blame for Recession


About 50 percent of respondents to a USA Today/Gallup poll say President Obama deserves at least some blame for the troubles of the U.S. economy, with 26 percent saying he deserves "a great deal," which is nearly two times last year´s total.

The poll found 50 percent saying Obama doesn´t deserve re-election, and the president fell in several other categories measured by the poll. However, 52 percent continue to have a favorable view of Obama, better than any member of Congress.

    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  May I direct your attention please  
... to how long it takes any president to pull the country out of a major recession. Exhibit A: Ronald Reagan.

When Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981, the economy was considered bad because unemployment was at 7.5 percent. Reagan immediately took action on the economy, enacting the biggest tax cut in U.S. history just six months later.

By November 1982, the unemployment rate had ballooned to 10.8 percent, worse than anything we´ve seen under Obama and worse than anything we saw under Bush. The unemployment rate didn´t drop under 10 percent until July 1983.

Reagan didn´t even have the unemployment back down to what it was when he took office until May 1984; in July 1985 it was still virtually the same. That, by the way, was into Reagan´s second term.

And that, folks, is the sort of time frame it takes to pull out of bad recessions. Yes, it sucks. But anybody who expects Obama to have fixed the economy within his first 15 months in office is irredeemably retarded.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/02/2010 06:58 AM     
  Forgot the source  
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/02/2010 07:06 AM     
  well its clear then  
50% of americans are idiots
  by: starlock   04/02/2010 07:39 AM     
  Not clear to me  
Yeah, but which 50%?
  by: TheBlob   04/02/2010 07:56 AM     
  What I Am Waiting For  
is the ratings he will have against a known opposition candidate. Right now the ratings are based on generic opposition.

If they compared him with Palin, or Romney I think the numbers would drastically change.
  by: ichi     04/02/2010 08:04 AM     
  my 2 cents  
At least the 26 percent are idiots who do not understand that the President (executive branch) isn´t the only deciding factor in getting things done. They may moan and bitch about the lack of progress but more than likely most of those 26 percent are Republicans and they fail to realize that their own party was doing everything they could to hold up legislation for health care which in turn wasted time when dealing with other parts of the economy.

Also I would like to add that there were a bunch of people critical of him within his first hundred days for not totally turning around the economy so many of them are probably delusional when it comes to their side not being in control...
  by: treyjazz   04/02/2010 09:08 AM     
  I love the economy and all  
but have we all forgotten we´re still in a war with no end in sight? yay obama healthcare economy rah rah
  by: sceptre_of_fertility   04/02/2010 09:59 AM     
  It could also be argued...  
...that we are ´still in a war´ with all of the countries we still have bases in... Germany, Japan to name a couple. Once we have a base in an occupied country we never leave.
  by: treyjazz   04/02/2010 10:08 AM     
  how much you wanna bet?  
how much you want to bet that most of that 50% was republicans and a most of the 26% was tea partiers and fox viewers?

i guess they all forgot that 80% of the CURRENT national debt (was about 90% at the time obama took office too to a sinking ship; and this was AFTER the bank bailout [TARP] which most people have forgettten was done under bush, not obama, though obama would have done it too) was created by REPUBLICANS, not democrats, and namely reagan (over 2 trillion), bush sr (about 1.8-2 trillion), and bush jr (5.5 trillion)... that 74% of the national debt alone without going into ANYTHING done by the democrats OR from before reagan took office.

i think these three presidents deserve the blame for the economy, BEFORE obama takes any (esspecially before his first term is up, or he does something that ACTUALLY WILL have a profound negative effect on the economy), he can only play the hand he´s dealt, and it was a crappy hand from the get go; no different than clinton, which took SIX YEARS for him to turn the economy around, and an year to produce to first surplus for the US in probably several decades, with a second surplus the following year.
  by: HAVOC666     04/02/2010 11:38 AM     
May I ask what you would call the people who work for 2 weeks a month? They aren´t considered unemployment because they are hired by a temp agency... Our company alone employs around 200 temps, we are looking at getting more... But they could loose their jobs at any point (and most likely will towards the 3 month point)
  by: nimira     04/02/2010 01:32 PM     
  I´m tired of all this....  
The recession was well under way before Obama took office.. If anyone should be to blame, I say point the finger at little George...

It´s like taking the last place football team in the middle of the season, hiring a new coach and then saying "If you don´t take this team to the Super Bowl "THIS YEAR," then YOUR FIRED!"

People remember what happens "in the end." Reagan has more fans now than he did while he was in office, because the outcome was that WE came out of the recession while he was still in office. How much of that actually had to do with hid decisions is purely a matter of opinion, since it can´t be proven. Obama will be no different. If the recession ends while he´s in office, he´ll be hailed as a hero. If it doesn´t, he´ll be regarded as a mistake.

The hard right are working VERY hard to make him fail. Spreading any B.S. they can to get everyone questioning Obama´s every move. If they want to see him fail, and they really believe he will, ... they wouldn´t bother with all of this, ... they´d simply step aside and watch him fail. They´re more worried that the economy will correct itself while Obama is in office, because the hard right refuse to admit that anyone who has a "D" after their name could possibily do anything right....
  by: jeffillinois   04/02/2010 04:41 PM     
I call that underemployment.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/02/2010 05:03 PM     
Essentially, half the country votes for the wrong guy every election. Seems intelligence is almost a force that swings like a pendulum 5-10 % in the middle between the homogeneous money and power concentration on the right and the heterogeneous populace on the left.
  by: ThE iNsAnE sMaRt GuY   04/02/2010 05:52 PM     
  Guaranteed Annual Wage  
I like the idea of a guaranteed annual wage -- something LBJ was trying to institute. If you are not working then by default you receive income, not unemployment etc,solid income until you are employed again.

Say you are guaranteed at least $25,000 per year whatever happens, and also includes health care.

In my opinion that would take the pressure off those that lost their jobs, but the wage is at a low enough level to motivate them to seek employment.
  by: PigMan   04/02/2010 06:11 PM     
It would be interesting to see what would happen if we were to institute that and phase out every other entitlement program. Essentially Social Security for all, but no more food stamps, WIC, etc.

We also really need some entrepreneurs to step to the plate and create sustainable, low-cost housing for low-income people. It could be conveniently located next to a police station to deter crime, could utilize the latest in energy-efficient building to lower costs, and provide, say, 300 square feet of intelligently used space (for instance, fold-out beds, shower stalls instead of tubs, etc.) for $200 a month or less.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/02/2010 06:43 PM     
Now, Ben, don´t you know that that is just communistic socialism. ;)
  by: Lurker     04/02/2010 07:05 PM     
I have often wondered why the police do not set up a sub-station in some of the larger housing projects.

In Oakland, Ca you actually see police sub-stations in grocery stores (they have been robed so much that the grocery stores actually built a police sub-station for them, free and clear)both benefit.

We need low cost housing as I believe everybody deserves housing, food (does not have to be steak), medical care and education. Hopefully with these employment will follow.

I have seen some nice 400 sq foot apts for the disabled that are affordable at around $300 - $400 a month. I have not seen anything in the $200 range. I am sure we have enough skilled designers to come up with something -- just need the will.
  by: PigMan   04/02/2010 07:07 PM     
  In similar news...  
50% of Americans are retarded. I wonder if there is a connection.
  by: Stiks   04/02/2010 07:08 PM     
I feel your comment is misdirected. Retardation is no joke. The people suffering from this disorder I am sure did not choose to be afflicted with it. The human mind is the most complex thing in the universe, at least of what we know. Maybe these people have paid the price for our complex brain, as theirs got mis-wired. Show a little empathy, perhaps STUPID would be a better substitute word as being stupid is a choice. Anyway its a free country say what you will.
  by: PigMan   04/02/2010 07:57 PM     
You can tell we failed math, how can we blame all our problems on one person!

Thats like somewhere in between denial and laziness.
I´d be pissed if I was Obama. How do you get a job and get blamed for everything.
Is president a slang term for scape goat?
  by: MannyisHere     04/02/2010 08:51 PM     
  not his fault  
that were in the "great recession" but it is his fault that were still in this mess he´s made no step forward to ending this economic crisis, and with the increase in taxes it will be his fault if the economy collapses.
  by: Devil Duck     04/02/2010 10:20 PM     
  His fault?  
We avoided the biggest threat to economic collapse since the great depression, people are buying houses again, the unemployment rate is turning around, the health care plan is absolutely essential in preventing further deterioration and vital for the future health of our people which translates to our economy, etc, etc. What´s his fault is the comeback and our future. The guy and his team are a collective genius.
  by: ThE iNsAnE sMaRt GuY   04/02/2010 11:45 PM     
  @Ben, Pig  
What you guys fail to realize is one undeniable truth. If your Utopian small, free, highly energy efficient apartments could be built cost effectively and every one of them could be built next to a police station... there would be an oversupply of them in this country.

Ideology cannot defy the mathematics of economics.

Further, if either of you actually believe that there is no benevolent person of means who has tried to formulate a practical way to take care of the less fortunate, you are laboring under severe delusion.

  by: bbeljefe     04/03/2010 04:55 AM     
Stupidity is no more a choice than retardation. In fact, the two words have been used interchangeably in history, particularly before the time since political correctness infected society.

But don´t take my word for it, do some research on your own. That way you can help remove a bit of ignorance from society, which by the way, is a choice.

  by: bbeljefe     04/03/2010 05:04 AM     
  BB thats B.S.  
Retardation is a MEDICAL CONDITION. Stupidity is NOT always a MEDICAL CONDITION. Do some research yourself. While retarded people are considered stupid, not all stupid people are retarded or so the logic goes.

I feel sorry for kids suffering from mental retardation at they were born into it and it is a condition that cannot be changed by effort.

Stupidity mostly can be changed by mental effort.

Stupid - well you should know the old saying, "Stupid is as stupid does". And it is sorta stupid to lump all people together - have a nice day.
  by: PigMan   04/03/2010 04:43 PM     
  These people  
believe in science things, like calendars.
  by: Jim8   04/03/2010 05:52 PM     
A big way you can choose to remove ignorance from society is to not pop off about things on which you´re obviously ignorant, and instead spend some time researching the things you don´t know about. To that end:
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/03/2010 05:56 PM     
  I see...  
I guess I have to choose which figurehead puppet president to blame...or not.

How about the deregulation of the financial institutions that allowed the subprime house of cards to build up and subsequently collapse? One of the main factors of the recession?

If I had to blame a figurehead, really it should be Clinton and Larry Summers for the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 99´
  by: Illustro Malum   04/03/2010 07:21 PM     
  Not true  
I´m sure 50% of Americans believe Bill Clinton started this recession. Well at least the majority of Republicans anyway. They also believe Bill time warped back in time and caused the Black Plague as well...
  by: The IT   04/03/2010 07:31 PM     
  @The IT  
To be honest, I´m not even blaming Clinton...I´m blaming the same bankers and oligarchs ´working for´ every administration since Kennedy.
  by: Illustro Malum   04/03/2010 07:51 PM     
  Actually, cross that  
since Teddy Roosevelt (the first)
  by: Illustro Malum   04/03/2010 07:52 PM     
The whole mess is directly attributed to unregulated capitalist greed.
  by: Lurker     04/03/2010 10:17 PM     
  Lurker is correct  
I said it.
  by: ThE iNsAnE sMaRt GuY   04/03/2010 11:50 PM     
50% and 26%= 76% blaming Obama for the poor condition of the economy and unemployment. Unchanged since last July 46% percent still blame Bush. With the independents on the rise and 50% saying he does not deserve to be re-elected that is a good sign the country is on the right track at least.
  by: hellblazer     04/04/2010 04:29 AM     
  Well the retardlicans accomplished many things  
-shifted the blame from bush to obama and suckered the american people

-gave rise to dormant racists and extremists

-continue to cheat the public at the public´s expense while doing some dirty underdealings of their own

-got evangelicals thinking that obama is the antichrist

and the gop is allegedly worried about foreigners coming in to destroy us, when they themselves are ruining the country from within.
  by: questworldz     04/04/2010 09:16 AM     
  @ ThE iNsAnE sMaRt GuY and lurker  
Yet we remain adamant in the US that regulation is not needed. China has begun regulating...err monitoring non-financial banking and anyone touching them to prevent banks from creating more cdo´s to lend more money. It´s what america should have done from day one instead of deregulating.
  by: questworldz     04/04/2010 09:23 AM     
Though I totally agree with your comments in the comment area I just have to say that the namecalling in the title detracts from the overall message you are trying to send/show and turns people off as soon as they read that.
  by: treyjazz   04/04/2010 09:35 AM     
  The Pig Speaks  
Everybody wants to blame everybody else. I don´t care, the problem was not created by Obama, it was created for him. Time to focus on the here and now, not the history of who´s fault it is. Move forward, fix the thing, move forward, move forward. As far as the economy goes, I believe he has done a good job so far, but this is not something that you fix and walk away, it requires constant attention. Get out of the wars and focus on the Amercian people and jobs!
  by: PigMan   04/04/2010 04:46 PM     
You seem to have handled that one strictly from an emotional knee jerk standpoint.

Now that you´ve had time to calm down, let me explain further. First, my comment wasn´t intended as an insult to either the retarded or the stupid. I was merely pointing out that unlike you claim, people do not choose to be stupid. Also, in the past people who were mentally retarded were sometimes referred to as stupid. No need to attack me for that, I didn´t do it I just reported it to you.

The word you were looking for, btw, is ignorance. Ignorance can easily be corrected with education.

And since you like sayings, remember this one?

"You can´t fix stupid"

  by: bbeljefe     04/04/2010 05:13 PM     
To prove your point you sent me a link to a property that was developed using taxpayer funds. There are 56 units in the property at an average cost of $33,000.00 per unit to build.

That´s hardly an inviting investment from a private investor´s standpoint considering the rate of return on investment. Also, there are only 6 of these proposed developments in the US and we have no idea how they much they will cost to build in operated in less temperate climates.

One last thing.. I never saw any mention of a police station being next to this apartment complex, and I even read the original Times article. ;)

  by: bbeljefe     04/04/2010 05:18 PM     
  @BB, hellblazer  
It was publicly financed. I´m sure you know that doesn´t mean that the bill was footed by the taxpayers.

Just because you didn´t see mention of a police station in the article doesn´t mean there isn´t one nearby. I used this thing called "Google Maps" and it showed me that there´s a police station less than three miles from this development. And the Poway County Sheriff´s office is just 2,112 feet away. (These internetz are just magical.)

@hellblazer: You are a shining example of how people´s reading skills on this site just suck here lately. That´s 50 percent who believe that Obama is at least somewhat culpable for the economic woes we´re suffering, with 26 percent feeling he bears most of the responsibility. That 26 percent is within the larger 50 percent, meaning that another 50 percent feel Obama does not deserve blame for the financial crisis and economic downturn that happened while Bush was in office.

I notice you didn´t have one thing to say about my above example of how long it took Reagan to turn around the early 80s recession. Typical -- I give you a pretty rock-solid example of how slow the economy can be to recover, under any president, and since you have nothing to refute that, you simply ignore it.
  by: Ben_Reilly     04/04/2010 06:20 PM     
  Actually Ben I know for a fact that the bill  
was paid with taxpayer dollars. What you don´t seem to understand or acknowledge is that the money loaned is taxpayer dollars and if said money is not paid back, it will be the taxpayers who´s investment went sour. You also don´t seem to understand that even if this money is paid back (which it most likely will be), it will not have been a lucrative investment.

The fact that spending money benefits some people does not mean that spending money benefits all people. Math dictates
that every time money is spent, someone benefits. But I digress. You have it in your mind that good deeds can outweigh math and there is clearly nothing I can say to dissuade your thinking.

Oh and, the police station bit was tongue in cheek.

More on topic... I don´t blame Obama for the current problems we have, I blame him largely for the future problems we will have.

  by: bbeljefe     04/05/2010 04:18 AM     
If the economy does stabilize near the end of his term, would yo vote for Obama then or still stick to your conservative guns?
  by: questworldz     04/05/2010 10:26 AM     
  Hey BB  
I have a great idea (as stupid as I am). Let’s not post answering or commenting on each others postings. Let’s just ignore each other.
I know I started this thing, but I should have knows that your intellect is far superior to mine, as your postings demonstrate. Let me grovel with the stupid people down in the mud where I can hold my own.
  by: PigMan   04/05/2010 04:28 PM     
Didn´t read all your comments, ... but as soon as I saw this story, Reagan came to mind.

How much effect the president or anything he does will have on the economy is a matter of opinion.

The only thing that really effects it, is peoples attitudes. When something bad happens, everyone panics, ... economy goes to crap, ... people wait, ... people realize they didn´t really need to panic, ... people slowly start to spend money again, ... economy eventually corrects itself.... It´s always the same.

Reagan was no different. Took three years just to "level off" job losses... And all the republicans now hail him as a hero, ... why? because he "cut taxes" and the economy eventually levelled off.

If cutting taxes was the all powerful answer the republicans say it is, ... the economy should have flourished immediately after Reagan cut taxes, but it didn´t. Why? Because Republican businessmen are "GREEDY." They took that tax cut and shoved the cash right in their pockets, rather than immediately hiring more people into all those jobs the republicans insist are created every time you cut taxes....
  by: jeffillinois   04/05/2010 06:00 PM     
  1% of America believes  
that morons that believe crap like this are to blame for the state of the country.

What say the rest of you 99%?
  by: jediman3     04/05/2010 08:49 PM     
No, I would not vote for Obama regardless of the state of the economy.

As I said, I don´t blame him for what we´re going through now, I blame him for what his actions will cause in the future. I blame every Keneysian politician who has held office and those of us who vote for their nonsense for the state of affairs we are in today. That includes all of the Presidents since I´ve been alive and pretty much every one we´ve had in the last hundred years.

It isn´t a matter of conservative or liberal, it´s a matter of mathematics.

  by: bbeljefe     04/06/2010 03:50 AM     
You need not put words in my mouth. I don´t see myself as any better than anyone else, regardless of whether I many or may not be smarter than them.
I never claimed such, either.

If you´ll stick around here long enough, you´ll see me make a mistake and be corrected on it and you´ll see me admit it.

None of us are perfect and this forum is a place in which to learn from others.

Welcome to Shortnews, btw.

  by: bbeljefe     04/06/2010 03:54 AM     
  Can´t blame Bush forever  
Obama is in his second year in office and has been blaming Bush since day one.

Correct me if I´m wrong, didn´t Obama promise that if we passed the Recovery Act of 2009 that jobless rate would not go about eight percent?

I am still waiting for something bold and dynamic from the White House to create jobs and not government ones like census takers. Americans are starting to view this "Blame Bush" as whining from the man-child.
  by: Mr.Science   04/09/2010 01:03 AM     
come on now you honestly think that this recession was caused by taking on more debt and not by deregulated financial industries or morally bankrupt lending practices?
  by: questworldz     04/09/2010 09:02 AM     
  No quest.  
It is a combination of all those things.

For instance, it isn´t credit that caused it, it´s the kind and amount of credit. And it isn´t deregulation that caused it, it´s the kind of deregulation.

  by: bbeljefe     04/09/2010 04:41 PM     
so, you´re saying i am right.
  by: questworldz     04/14/2010 06:14 AM     
  Partly, quest.  
You´re right to some degree, kinda like a political reporter of Keneysian economist is when they only include the parts that fit their agenda.

For instance, you mentioned morally bankrupt lending practices but excluded morally bankrupt borrowing practices, when the reality is that Joe the greedy mortgage broker couldn´t have written an ARM mortgage for Jim the greedy working guy unless they both agreed that he could pay off the mortgage.

All the while both should have known he couldn´t.

In other words, it isn´t all the fault of greedy rich people. Greedy people trying to get rich or act rich were willing accomplices.

  by: bbeljefe     04/16/2010 05:01 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: