Bloomberg poll shows 4 in 10 Obama supporters now opposing him

posted at 3:35 pm on October 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Disillusionment has set into the one-time supporters of Hopenchange, according to a new Bloomberg poll of likely midterm voters.  Nearly 40% of those who previously supported Barack Obama now disapprove of his job performance.  The number grows among women and independents, where majorities of both have abandoned the President:

Hope has turned to doubt and disenchantment for almost half of President Barack Obama’s supporters.

More than 4 of 10 likely voters who say they once considered themselves Obama backers now are either less supportive or say they no longer support him at all, according to a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 7-10.

Three weeks before the Nov. 2 congressional elections that Republicans are trying to make a referendum on Obama, fewer than half of likely voters approve of the president’s job performance. Likely voters are more apt to say Obama’s policies have harmed rather than helped the economy. Among those who say they are most enthusiastic about voting this year, 6 of 10 say the Democrat has damaged the economy.

The worst news comes from two constituencies that lifted Obama and the Democrats to victory in 2008.  Among likely-voter women who supported Obama in 2008, more than 60% have changed their minds, portending a very difficult battle in Obama’s re-election in 2012.  Fifty-three percent of independents who voted for Obama now disapprove of his performance.

Interestingly, the perception of Obama as anti-business hasn’t resonated, with only 36% of likely voters professing that belief.  There is a significant perception on the Left that Obama has been too pro-business, as Bloomberg reports from anecdotal comments.  That doesn’t let Obama off the hook for the economy, though, as 47% believe that Obamanomics has damaged the economy, and 53% saying that Congressional Democrats have damaged the economy as well.

We’ll see how the damage to the Obama brand impacts Democrats in three weeks.  With numbers deteriorating like this, and with economists predicting high unemployment and economic stagnation for the entirety of 2011, Obama seems destined to tread the same path as Jimmy Carter by the time Iowa holds its binding caucus in January 2012.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

and Bloomberg has Dems +2 on the generic.

WoosterOh on October 12, 2010 at 3:38 PM

And where’s Shrillery these days? Tucked away somewhere, I presume, putting her 2012 team together.

Rational Thought on October 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM

We’ll see how the damage to the Obama brand impacts Democrats in three weeks. With numbers deteriorating like this, and with economists predicting high unemployment and economic stagnation for the entirety of 2011, Obama seems destined to tread the same path as Jimmy Carter by the time Iowa holds its binding caucus in January 2012.

Always bad news, with the good, unfortunately.

Can the US take another year of this kind of decline? Can we rebound from it? Will it be to late? All of this uncertainty wears on a person. The stress is awful.

capejasmine on October 12, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Unprecedented!!

BacaDog on October 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Hope sinks

And stinks and has corn in it.

SouthernGent on October 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Ship: see Rats.

teacherman on October 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Racism is out of control in America.

Cicero43 on October 12, 2010 at 3:42 PM

and the other 6 of 10 get government handouts or are inamoured by his skin color and incredible charm

it’s curtains for those who can’t see beyond them

audiotom on October 12, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Obama seems destined to tread the same path as Jimmy Carter by the time Iowa holds its binding caucus in January 2012.

And I am certain that the Hawkeye State will take care of him in 2012, just like they did in 2008….oh wait!

ted c on October 12, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Where are all these racists coming from? I blame “Tea Bagger” influence.

Bishop on October 12, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Can the US take another year of this kind of decline? Can we rebound from it? Will it be to late? All of this uncertainty wears on a person. The stress is awful.

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch. Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I’ll give this to Barack Obama, he’s more likeable than the communist friend I had since high school days.

shick on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

it’s curtains for those who can’t see behind the curtains

handout mentality 101
won’t rule the roost once Obambi take us further down with him

where’s my car, gasoline, house note

what? he promised

audiotom on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

It is extremely concerning that a swath of the American people consider Obama to be pro-business.

Surely, it can be credited to his takeovers of industries through bailouts while the American people suffer. But these people are apparently seeing the bailout only, and not the demonization of these industries, nor the subsequent hostile control of them post-bailout.

IronDioPriest on October 12, 2010 at 3:46 PM

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch. Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.
bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Tell us all, Skippy. Who controlled Congress in 2007?

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM

where’s my car, gasoline, house note

what? he promised

audiotom on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

you hafta get in line for the free kitchens first…then the tax cut, then take a swing through the soup line…then you can get a car…just no gas.

lines.

ted c on October 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch. Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.

look no further than our nothern neighbors Canada

they recovered just fine from the financial crisis
and with no stimulus package

welfare state and more government don’t work

audiotom on October 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

What’s 40% of 53%? 21.4%. So Obama’s real approval rating stands at 31.6%.

Rocks on October 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Bloomberg poll shows 4 in 10 Obama supporters now opposing him

And the Grand Back-Fire begins…………………….
============================================================

Well,it looks like Hopey/Changey has really put one over on the ObamaVoterBots,Kicking there *ss’s so to speak!!

And pray tell,when does the ObamaVoterBot BackLash and
Insurrection begin!!

Hopey there is NO CHANGEY.What have you not done for
them lately!!

President Obama,
—————-

you said, You help US,and will help YOU!!!!

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!! You have really SCREWED-OVER your BASE!!!!
===========================================================

Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

canopfor on June 10, 2010 at 4:27 PM

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Tell us all, Skippy. Who controlled Congress in 2007?

kingsjester on October 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Its’ hard to see how Congress was responsible for 2007 financial crisis. Not even Wall Street has tried to make that claim.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

look no further than our northern neighbors Canada

they recovered just fine from the financial crisis
and with no stimulus package

welfare state and more government don’t work

audiotom on October 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Canada deserves a closer look in this regard, -in fact they didn’t have a financial crisis at all, only a mild recession. Why? No CRA garbage. They use old-fashioned criteria to determine who gets a mortgage, and everyone has to come up with a big down payment.

slickwillie2001 on October 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Its’ hard to see how Congress was responsible for 2007 financial crisis. Not even Wall Street has tried to make that claim.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

So Congress bears no responsibility for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Doughboy on October 12, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Its’ hard to see how Congress was responsible for 2007 financial crisis. Not even Wall Street has tried to make that claim.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

They were aware of the impending doom caused by Fannie and Freddie and didn’t lift a finger to prevent it. They said both were in fine shape.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Our current situation may have begun in 2007 but there is no denying that Obama made things worse. His policies and legislation add costs to producers that simply can’t be passed on to the final consumer, that is if you can find one at all. Overall, he’s created a disincentive to produce and once the producers stop producing, then the whole system crashes.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM

look no further than our nothern neighbors Canada

they recovered just fine from the financial crisis
and with no stimulus package

Canada had a strongly regulated financial markets (too strong in my opinion) and their banks escaped the financial meltdown relatively untouched.

In parts of the developed world that did face major economic dislocation, stimulus has been very effective. If you look at China and Germany, those countries enacted stimulus measures that were far larger (as a % of GDP) than what was passed in the US. Those countries have also seen far stronger economic rebounds.

There’s a long history of the effects of public spending during recessionary periods in free market economies around the world. As a result, it’s not a major point of debate among economists.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Regardless of the reality on the ground, I’m disillusioned with this rather large sub-pop of American voters.

He did what he said he was going to do. If this many supporters have turned on him this quickly, I think that reflects worse on them than Obama.

Asher on October 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

And a pork-filled “stimulus”, a new multi-trillion dollar “reform” package that business has no idea how to plan for, looming tax hikes, cap and trade, etc., have NOTHING to do with.

Please, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Why do you think the stock market is up? Because investors know Democrats are going to get trounced in November.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM

No CRA garbage. They use old-fashioned criteria to determine who gets a mortgage, and everyone has to come up with a big down payment

So Congress bears no responsibility for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Yes, Congress is responsible for pushing lower lending standards. But not even Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan or other major players on Wall Street would blame Congress for the meltdown. A few hundred billion in bad capital allocation can’t even begin to break the US financial system. Even if Glen Beck tells you otherwise, it was actually CDO’s and securitized mortgage products that infected the worldwide financial system with a cancer that nearly ended capitalism as we know it. You can buy any number of books on this subject.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM

As a result, it’s not a major point of debate among economists.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Then let’s stop listening to them because they are morons.

Every so-called “expert” out there has been proven totally wrong lately.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

There’s a long history of the effects of public spending during recessionary periods in free market economies around the world. As a result, it’s not a major point of debate among economists.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

hahahahahahahaha

Paul Krugman … is that you?

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Proud Obama Supporters souring teh One?

It’s stands to reason, you see fewer and fewer bumper stickers Proudly declaring their Obama Support.

Gone are the days when the Proud Obama Supporters would stand up and say: I’m a POS now and forever!

Insert witty screen name here on October 12, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Bloomberg poll shows 4 in 10 Obama supporters now opposing him

the blatant misrepresentation of the article you quote is a sign of contempt for your readers’ intelligence. ‘less supportive’ clearly does not mean opposition. meanwhile,

53 percent of voters have a positive view of the president in the October poll, up from 49 percent in a July survey… In a hypothetical presidential match-up against one of the Republican Party’s most prominent figures, Obama beats the Wasilla nutjob 51 percent to 35 percent.

then, a glimpse into ed’s mind:

Interestingly, the perception of Obama as anti-business hasn’t resonated, with only 36% of likely voters professing that belief.

perception doesn’t resonate. propaganda does.

sesquipedalian on October 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM

it was actually CDO’s and securitized mortgage products that infected the worldwide financial system with a cancer that nearly ended capitalism as we know it. You can buy any number of books on this subject.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM

And where did the “securitized mortgage products” come from?

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM

“Less supportive” is not the same as “opposing” someone.

Jimbo3 on October 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch. Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

bayam:This doesn’t help your thesis,jus sayin,Back-Fire
#2,and this one is all Hopeys’s doing,his policies are
coming home to roost!!!
======================================================

Oil industry attention turns to Iraq amid concerns about US production post Gulf spill

12:59 p.m. CDT, October 12, 2010
———————————–

LONDON (AP) — Iraq’s oil production is increasingly important to meet world energy demand, industry executives meeting in London said Tuesday, as they predicted that the political fallout from the Gulf of Mexico spill will have a long-term impact on U.S. production.

After years of sanctions and war, Iraq — home to some of the world’s largest reserves — is finally finding the political stability necessary for oil extraction.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-eu-britain-oil-conference,0,7882053.story

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Common sense says the crisis started when the Dems took over Congress, and the job loses started when the Dems raised the minimum wage.

If WG goes up $2 from $6hr then you lose 1/3 your workforce to stay at the same profit you were at.

WoosterOh on October 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Why do you think the stock market is up? Because investors know Democrats are going to get trounced in November.

Funny thing is that Wall Street was bearish in the extreme during Sept yet the market still went up. Now you claim to understand what drives the markets in a given direction other than anticipated economic growth?

Most professional investors remain upbeat about corporate earnings and a long yet sustained recovery. Without further stimulus the economy is at risk of a double dip recession, but investors seem confident that the recovery will continue.

There’s no quick fix to magically repair the US economy.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

There’s no quick fix to magically repair the US economy.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Sure there is. Get the government out of the way. Free capital, cut spending, cut taxes, get rid of suffocating and mindless regulation. It’s not magical, it’s common sense.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Its’ hard to see how Congress was responsible for 2007 financial crisis. Not even Wall Street has tried to make that claim.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM

During the Clinton administration, there was a big push to stop banks from virtually redlining people who wanted to buy a house, even if they really couldn’t afford it. Banks were encouraged (strongly) to lend, even if it was outside the boundaries of safe lending practices. They were able to profit through CRA credits and at the same time get the government off their backs.

Asher on October 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

There’s a long history of the effects of public spending during recessionary periods in free market economies around the world. As a result, it’s not a major point of debate among economists.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

I noted this Keynesian lie earlier.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Throwing Democrats out on the incompetent, corrupt asses is a good first step.

The Dow would go above 14,000 if Obama, Biden and Pelosi would resign today.

The #1 problem facing this country today, is Democrat politicians. Every other problem we face is because of these anti-business, anti-American idiots.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Throwing Democrats out on their incompetent, corrupt asses is a good first step.

The Dow would go above 14,000 if Obama, Biden and Pelosi would resign today.

The #1 problem facing this country today, is Democrat politicians. Every other problem we face is because of these anti-business, anti-American idiots.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Why do you think the stock market is up? Because investors know Democrats are going to get trounced in November.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Actually, a good portion of why the market is up is that corporations’ intrinsic value has not changed, but they are valued in dollars, which are declining.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

And where did the “securitized mortgage products” come from?

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM

That’s not a simple question. You can think of CBO’s as insurance on a derivative, if that makes any sense. You may want to read how any number of Republicans, like Greenspan, describe the crisis.

When Wall Street decided that it had found a way to completely mitigate risk, and then sold the rest of the world on the low-risk nature of these financial products, the course to near Armageddon was set. Not even the people on Wall Street who created the crisis through their financial engineering would blame government- outside of its failure to more closely regulate.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

perception doesn’t resonate. propaganda does.

sesquipedalian on October 12, 2010 at 4:03 PM

sesquipedalian: The Progressive Utopia has done evaporated,
here,Let the Germans tell you than,!
——————————————————

(Obama’s left-of-center coalition, which got young people and intellectuals involved and which appealed to a majority of women, blacks and Latinos, has evaporated into nothing.”)

============================================================
============================================================

From Der Spiegel,

Me thinks the Tea Party might be cook’n Hopey’s goose,
this analysist sounds good to me!!
———————————–
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

“The success of the Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell does not bode well for the Republicans, nor for the Democrats (even if they see it differently at the moment), nor for the whole American political machine.”

“Obama has underestimated the frustration in the country and the power of the Tea Party movement, which gives the prevailing disillusionment a platform and a voice. It is by far the most vibrant political force in America. Obama’s left-of-center coalition, which got young people and intellectuals involved and which appealed to a majority of women, blacks and Latinos, has evaporated into nothing.”

“The new right, though, is on the rise. It sets the agenda. America is facing a shift to the right. The Republicans have already marched in this direction of their own accord, regardless how many Tea Party reactionaries get a seat and a voice in Congress in November. The Democrats and the president have been put totally on the defensive. From now on they will only be able to react, rather than act.”

– Jess Smee
===================================

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,717845,00.html

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I wish people would quit concentrating on Obama, especially in the suggestion that he might be some dreaded anchor for the Dems, because this isn’t just about him and he isn’t the root cause of the problems.

The Democrat Party is the cause, or primarily their leadership and elected reps are. Dems had been pushing Climate Change legislation for years prior to Obama coming on the scene. The Dems have been pushing the nationalization of healthcare since before he was born and Clinton almost got it pushed through.

Yeah, sure, Obama was someone Dems could rally around and he put a popular, well liked face on the policies the Dems had been pushing for decades and it helped them get the majorities they needed to put their policies into effect, but he’s just a storefront, a poster boy, a cheerleader in mom pants who hasn’t done much of anything besides lend his aura to their fight.

A Dem Party with no Obama is still the Dem Party, with all the same Dem plans and policy proposals that we’ve seen and found objectionable these last two years.

The Dems in Congress are the problem. Make them own the problems, not Obama. Dumping on Obama just takes the heat off the Dems in Congress.

Dusty on October 12, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Not even the people on Wall Street who created the crisis through their financial engineering would blame government- outside of its failure to more closely regulate.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Do you really expect to get away with outright lies here?

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM

There’s a long history of the effects of public spending during recessionary periods in free market economies around the world. As a result, it’s not a major point of debate among economists.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

I noted this Keynesian lie earlier.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Based on stimulus spending in which country over the past 2 decades?

Actually, a good portion of why the market is up is that corporations’ intrinsic value has not changed, but they are valued in dollars, which are declining.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM

That’s probably the best answer and a disturbing truth that no one wants to face. At the same time, it may be the only way the US can deal with its massive debt.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Do you really expect to get away with outright lies here?

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM

You’re too funny Vashta. Have you read Too Big To Fail or talked with any of the Wall Street quants who were structuring deals a few years ago?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Based on stimulus spending in which country over the past 2 decades?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Why do you want to restrict it to two decades? Do you think it improves your odds? Have a look at Japan if you want to see how it works out limited to the past 20 years. You can’t count China due to cooked numbers, and Germany hasn’t had a long enough run to be conclusive.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM

canopfor on October 12, 2010 at 4:12 PM

very interesting.

sesquipedalian on October 12, 2010 at 4:24 PM

You’re too funny Vashta. Have you read Too Big To Fail or talked with any of the Wall Street quants who were structuring deals a few years ago?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM

I don’t read it, I live it. Crash course: CRA demands that banks loosen their lending standards – banks create CDOs to spread out the increased risk, Clinton supercharges the CRA, Bush and others see it spinning out of control and try to stop it, dems double down and further inflate the bubble, bubble pops, and now the answer to the crash is foreclosure abatement, and trying to restart the subprime market.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM

There’s a long history of the effects of public spending during recessionary periods in free market economies around the world. As a result, it’s not a major point of debate among economists.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:57 PM

That isn’t true. Economists do debate this regularly. With liberals taking the Krugman view that gov’t spendnig solves all ills and everyone else seeing that deficit spending has inconclusive results at best. To come on here and claim that there is no debate about this is simply astoundnig. Either you know nothing about economics or you are completely dishonest. I’m guessing a little of both.

Monkeytoe on October 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

I love the new meme of the left – we would all be broke and starving were it not for the porkulas bill. Such ridiculous tripe. all the “stimulus” did was transfer money to state and local gov’ts. Had the stimulus been in the form of actually paying for construction projects and teh like, perhaps an argument could be made for doing something for the economy. Propping up inefficient public employee union jobs for a year or two hardly did anything good for the ecomony. Even if you are a keynsian who believes gov’t deficit spending can increase wealth, you can’t make an argument for it with Obama’s stimulus.

Monkeytoe on October 12, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Economists do debate this regularly. With liberals taking the Krugman view that gov’t spendnig solves all ills and everyone else seeing that deficit spending has inconclusive results at best. To come on here and claim that there is no debate about this is simply astoundnig. Either you know nothing about economics or you are completely dishonest. I’m guessing a little of both.

Monkeytoe on October 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

It is traditional liberal misdirection.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Have a look at Japan if you want to see how it works out limited to the past 20 years

Barron’s recently cited the experience of Japan’s balance sheet recession and lost decade. In the years when government spending was cut to allow the economy to ‘heal itself’, the results were painful: lower GDP and a larger annual deficit.

There are a number of Japanese economists, highly respected by Wall Street (such as Richard Koo), who have delivered the same message- don’t make the mistake of cutting back on stimulus spending in the wake of a deep recession marked by high debt and deep reductions in asset prices. Japan learned its lesson the hard way.

I’m not a proponent of government spending and often disagreed with people here who supported Bush’s deficit spending. But today’s balance sheet recession leaves the country few options.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Monkeytoe on October 12, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Isn’t it also possible that some stimulus packages are more effective than others?

Looks like ours was mostly wasted on bailing out state employees and other useless projects.

Obama allowing Pelosi and Reid to write the stimulus legislation has to be one of the biggest political and economic blunders in American history.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 4:35 PM

Economists do debate this regularly. With liberals taking the Krugman view that gov’t spendnig solves all ills and everyone else seeing that deficit spending has inconclusive results at best.

Which economists? Can you name a dozen well known economists outside of Chicago who hold this debate? Any well known Wall Street economists?
It was Bush, not Obama, who believed that deficit spending was such a wonderful device (“deficits don’t matter), doubling the nation’s debt in short order. To me, deficit spending is a necessary evil that’s needed to fill the void when consumers and businesses stop spending. It should never have occurred during the Bush years. It should never occur when the economy is healthy.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:38 PM

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch. Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Are you referring to the Dem. congress, that we are about to vote out?
Couldn’t hurt

IowaWoman on October 12, 2010 at 4:41 PM

With numbers deteriorating like this, and with economists predicting high unemployment and economic stagnation for the entirety of 2011, Obama seems destined to tread the same path as Jimmy Carter by the time Iowa holds its binding caucus in January 2012

Every generation gets it own Carter to remind them what not to do for the next 20-25 years.

Alden Pyle on October 12, 2010 at 4:41 PM

bayam HAS to be krugman the pud.

Let’s apply the scientific method here, jackass.

Did the trillion dollars of spending by the government work to end the recession? No.
Did the trillion dollars of spending by the government put me, my children, and my grandchildren into an insanely deep hole of debt? Yes.
Did the trillion dollars of spending make me, personally, more wealthy, or less wealthy? Less (see point 2 above).
Did the trillion dollars of spending actually ease unemployment? It’s doubtful.

By all measurable standards, the money spent by the government may as well have been piled up in a stadium and lit on fire for all the good it did.

Vancomycin on October 12, 2010 at 4:43 PM

I don’t read it, I live it.

That’ my point, you haven’t even tried to educate yourself. If you think you know more than Greenspan and every well-respected writer on the crisis, I’m not going to waste time disagreeing with you.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Did the trillion dollars of spending by the government work to end the recession? No.
Did the trillion dollars of spending by the government put me, my children, and my grandchildren into an insanely deep hole of debt? Yes.

Nice name calling. You’re a real class act.

Only an idiot would have believed that the stimulus would end the recession. I note that you also disagree with many posters here who’ve commented on the role of stimulus in enabling positive economic growth over the past 8 quarters is stimulus spending.

Obama isn’t the cause of the massive federal debt. Our debt started when fools bought into the Bush argument in 2000 that the country could afford deep tax cuts and laughed at Paul O’Neill in Treasury who warned us all that continued cuts combined with spending would lead to long-term financial problems.

But I’m sure you’re not one of those people. You never voted for politicians who caused the debt.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

That’ my point, you haven’t even tried to educate yourself. If you think you know more than Greenspan and every well-respected writer on the crisis, I’m not going to waste time disagreeing with you.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Greenspan said the stimulus “worked far less than expected”.

Projections and reality are 2 different things.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Obama isn’t the cause of the massive federal debt. Our debt started when fools bought into the Bush argument in 2000 that the country could afford deep tax cuts and laughed at Paul O’Neill in Treasury who warned us all that continued cuts combined with spending would lead to long-term financial problems.

But I’m sure you’re not one of those people. You never voted for politicians who caused the debt.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Compare deficits and debt as a % of GDP then and now and come back to us.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM

That’ my point, you haven’t even tried to educate yourself. If you think you know more than Greenspan and every well-respected writer on the crisis, I’m not going to waste time disagreeing with you.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:46 PM

If you are ‘educating yourself’ by reading one-sided books, you are wasting your time. I ‘live it’ by reviewing legislation, market reports, and bank balance sheets – a bit more rigorous than your method.

Vashta.Nerada on October 12, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Compare deficits and debt as a % of GDP then and now and come back to us.

That’s a good way to pretty up the numbers- wait until a deep recession and then compare the percentages to GDP. Nice. I guess everything under Bush was perfect, even with $4 tril in new debt during a healthy economy.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:03 PM

bayam,

Tell you what, most contributors to Hot Air have been predicting exactly what is happening now, long, long ago; saw it coming down the pike with binoculars. You just keep your nose in those “economic experts” books you seem to relish… It’ll be 50/50 that they’ll get it right.

betsyz on October 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

..ruining a perfectly good thread about your hero losing favor. Soros started funding trolls again, has he?

The War Planner on October 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM

Obama isn’t the cause of the massive federal debt. Our debt started when fools bought into the Bush argument in 2000 that the country could afford deep tax cuts and laughed at Paul O’Neill in Treasury who warned us all that continued cuts combined with spending would lead to long-term financial problems.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

This has to be Krugman. He sounds just like him. Totally ridiculous.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

The most successful recovery was posted under Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge did the exact opposite of Obama and the country recovered rapidly.

Obama is doing the same as FDR. FDR’s goal wasn’t recovery, it was to lengthen the depression, to be able to use it as rationale to ram his massive government growth and socialism upon the US.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Well, they finally caved in.

Bloomberg. The biggest Barfy cheerleaders. All those breathless, gushing girls masquerading as ‘news casters.’

Al Hunt must be puking somewhere. His job was to cheerlead the cheerleaders on. Cute in a sort of high schoolish ’60′s sort of way but disgraceful for a news organization that once had a respectable reputation as a financial news resource, sans mega bullshit.

I suppose that’s what happens when the owner loses his way with salt and soda fascism enforcement. (It’s always dangerous for short people to wade into the weeds.)

Well, good on ya’ Bloomie Peeps. There is obviously one person in the org. who can’t ignore the obvious. Terrible position, actually, having to tell the truth along with getting Bo Peep’s sheep hook out to drag Mike back to reality.

So, what’s next? Firing some girls with pom poms? No, not the girly girls. How about girly Al Hunt who would sell his soul for a fine Bordeau much less Barry? I’d put his ass first on line. He’s not good with ‘breathless and cute’, and his booty ain’t much to shake these days.

Good luck, Bloomberg. It was nice knowing you for a few mins.

Cody1991 on October 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Let us not forget which administration ended Glass-Stegal in 1999, and then went into the financial sector jobs in 2000 (for which most were highly-unqualified)

phreshone on October 12, 2010 at 5:13 PM

That’s a good way to pretty up the numbers- wait until a deep recession and then compare the percentages to GDP. Nice. I guess everything under Bush was perfect, even with $4 tril in new debt during a healthy economy.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:03 PM

Obama will run up $4 trillion in under 3 years.

Chuck Schick on October 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

White people have to get on board the “white guilt” train again and acknowledge that Obama is the Anointed One.

technopeasant on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Tell you what, most contributors to Hot Air have been predicting exactly what is happening now, long, long ago; saw it coming down the pike with binoculars

Really? Most contributors described Bush’s bubble economy as an economic miracle at the time. But I do give Ed credit for realizing that there was no quick fix to the near collapse of our financial system. It will take many years for businesses and households to unwind their debt and return to higher levels of spending.

This has to be Krugman. He sounds just like him.

I don’t read Krugman or even know much about him- but I did study economics at a top university and read WSJ and Barron’s on a regular basis, so perhaps I don’t see the world objectively in your opinion.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Ok, think the Mistress of Disaster, Jamie Goerelik, who went on to Fannie Mae

On March 25, 2002, Business Week interviewed Gorelick about the health of Fannie Mae. Gorelick is quoted as saying, “We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody’s gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength — without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions.”[6] One year later, Government Regulators “accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses”.[7]

phreshone on October 12, 2010 at 5:19 PM

I don’t read Krugman or even know much about him- but I did study economics at a top university and read WSJ and Barron’s on a regular basis, so perhaps I don’t see the world objectively in your opinion.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Good for you. It seems you’ve wasted your time and money. Common sense is what’s called for here and todays schools have a critical short supply of it.

Taking wealth out of the hands of the producers, creators and spenders is not sound fiscal policy.

The best example of how to recover from a depression is Coolidge, not some economist. What do economists produce anyway? Aren’t they a product of capitalism?

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

but I did study economics at a top university
bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM

Which one is that?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Bayam, who was asking for MORE oversight of Fannie and Freddie, and who said Nothing to see here…

phreshone on October 12, 2010 at 5:24 PM

Marxism isn’t bad philosophy, not economics

phreshone on October 12, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Taking wealth out of the hands of the producers, creators and spenders is not sound fiscal policy.
What do economists produce anyway? Aren’t they a product of capitalism?

Then should we listen to job producers? I don’t mean the local pet care center- I mean companies that can compete internationally and drive new job growth- like the people who run Google or Apple? Or the CEO of Alcoa?

Or how about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? I’d settle for venture capitalists- the people who invest billions of dollars in startup companies every year. Why don’t we listen to them?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

but I did study economics at a top university

Hey, how ’bout that?

We have dozens of highly educated people in the White House.

And all we get from them are excuses and blame when everything they predicted would happen as a result of their policies, didn’t.

All “top universities” are good for, it’s obvious, is networking and self-advancement. Ivy Leaguers have been totally discredited during this “administration”.

NoDonkey on October 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Really? Most contributors described Bush’s bubble economy as an economic miracle at the time. But I do give Ed credit for realizing that there was no quick fix to the near collapse of our financial system. It will take many years for businesses and households to unwind their debt and return to higher levels of spending.

Then forgive me. Sincerely. I had no idea. I’ve been visiting this site for just about 2 1/2 years. So if you say there was some consensus here calling “Bush’s bubble economy as an economic miracle”, then I apologize.

betsyz on October 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM

Taking wealth out of the hands of the producers, creators and spenders is not sound fiscal policy.
darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:23 PM

It sort makes you wonder what kind of mindset would think that would actually work.

Why sure, have people work harder and then take the extra money they earn at gun point.

Yes, that’ll show them, they’ll want to expand their businesses and hire more people because darn it! The government just doesn’t have enough money to burn.

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Aretha’s got a message for Barry from all of us. Stop golfing, bullshitting and listen kid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrV0c9ETnWo

Cody1991 on October 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

You are hilarious toady. Obama’s action and inaction has only worsened things idiot. Lapdogs like you are hilarious.

Enjoy paying for OBAMAs deficits fool. You tire me out. Such a pathetic faux thinker and pompous too.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

Read and learn . Enjoy paying for it dupe.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:34 PM

From Heritage:(yeh a bonus that only dupes like bayam could enjoy)

President Obama’s bailouts, massive stimulus spending, and other dangerous interventionist policies (some of which began in 2008) have made Americans less economically free. The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom analyzes just how economically “free” a country is, and this year America saw a steep and significant decline, enough to make it drop altogether from the “free” category, the first time this has happened in the 16 years we’ve been publishing these indexes. The United States dropped to “mostly free.” As the Index shows, lack of freedom has a direct, negative effect on job growth. It should be no surprise that President Obama’s policies have taken us down the path to fewer jobs and record deficits.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Then should we listen to job producers? I don’t mean the local pet care center- I mean companies that can compete internationally and drive new job growth- like the people who run Google or Apple? Or the CEO of Alcoa?

Or how about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? I’d settle for venture capitalists- the people who invest billions of dollars in startup companies every year. Why don’t we listen to them?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

You don’t get it do you? The government just needs to get the hell out of the way … period. The job of the federal government is to protect liberty and the nation so people can create, innovate, invent. Not tell them what they can do or how they can do it, or take their earnings.

People don’t need the government. The government needs them … their money.

Leave us the hell alone.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

Yes, let be real selective about it and pick the ones that support the Left’s oppressive agenda.

Hey, how come those people just don’t Redistribute their own wealth to the “Little people”?

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Leave us the hell alone.
darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

IIRC, John Galt put it this way: Get the H@ll out of my way!

Chip on October 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

If you think that Obama is to blame for the current economic conditions, you’re out of touch. Today’s economy is a product of the 2007 economic crisis and things won’t improve anytime soon. There’s no silver bullet for the broad capital destruction that occurred when our economic system almost collapsed.
bayam on October 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Naturally trollboy forgets to mention the very same, Obama the Boy-King, sat in the Democrat majority in the Senate (since Jan. 2007) and voted for all those socialist, economy-destroying laws introduced by his very own Democrat/Marxist party!

But, yah whatevever, blame Boosh and those evil Rethuglicans for those 2 years of economy destroying Marxist edicts.

Ogabe on October 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM

Then should we listen to job producers? I don’t mean the local pet care center- I mean companies that can compete internationally and drive new job growth- like the people who run Google or Apple? Or the CEO of Alcoa?

Or how about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? I’d settle for venture capitalists- the people who invest billions of dollars in startup companies every year. Why don’t we listen to them?

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM

The local pet care center has a better finger on the pulse of the economy than any of those other people that you listed. And what the heck does the ability to compete internationally have to do with job creation? Most jobs are created by multi-nationals? Right.

Obama and the Dems have the same problem that you do – you substitute pedigree for common sense. Obama is supposedly surrounded by the greatest concentration of brain power in modern times, yet the vast majority of people disapprove of his policies – because they’re NOT WORKING. And that’s what it’s really about, results. Either he produces them or he doesn’t – it isn’t a matter of messaging or anything else – he simply can’t close the sale. Mostly because he (and many of those around them) have never had to. And that includes most economists. If they were so smart then we wouldn’t be where we are now in first place.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Leave us the hell alone.

darwin on October 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Thread winner.

volnation on October 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM

But, yah whatevever, blame Boosh and those evil Rethuglicans for those 2 years of economy destroying Marxist edicts.

Which legislation from 2007 – 2008 are you referring to? Bush passed the socialist prescription drug benefit when he controlled the Congress, and during his first 5 years managed to increase total government spending by over 30%. Our current debt problems are rooted in this era.

Of course, the war required higher spending. The problem was that those spending increases were never paid matched by spending cuts in other areas or by higher taxes. It was the Cheney “deficits don’t matter” policy heyday of adding everything to the national credit card because it was trendy to believe that the economy would outgrow debt.

2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted by President Bush)

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Maybe trollboy should go have a look at a chart of yearly federal deficits. Odd how since 2007 under the Democrat/Marxists the deficits grew exponentially!

But just keep on chokin that chicken sunshine!

Ogabe on October 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703358504575544351734226956.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Read up idiot

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM

SPENDING is up over 20 percent in two years and nothing to pay for it bayam you stupid toady.

CWforFreedom on October 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM

The local pet care center has a better finger on the pulse of the economy than any of those other people that you listed. And what the heck does the ability to compete internationally have to do with job creation?

It has everything to do with it. As Warren Buffet has been saying for the last decade, our trade deficits represent a great outpouring of wealth from the US to foreign countries. We’re turning into a country of dipshit service companies while China is accumulating all the wealth.

You are hilarious toady. Obama’s action and inaction has only worsened things idiot.

Enjoy paying for OBAMAs deficits fool. You tire me out. Such a pathetic faux thinker and pompous too.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

Read and learn.

That’s great, you’re able to read slanted propaganda from a right-wing think tank. You’re really on top of the facts and have a deep, objective understanding of how capitalism works.

bayam on October 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2