Shocker: Bush beats Obama 48/43 in poll

posted at 12:55 pm on October 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When I wrote yesterday that the “blame Bush” strategy had reached its expiration date, I had no idea how prescient that was.  Pollster Douglas Schoen, who partners with longtime Democratic strategist Mark Penn at Penn Schoen & Berland, has taken his final look at the midterm electorate and finds it extraordinarily hostile to Barack Obama.  The President only gets 38% for a re-election bid, but the news is worse than that — much worse, according to US News & World Report:

According to pollster Doug Schoen, whose new poll shows vast support for the Tea Party movement among voters, the president is still liked by about half the nation. In fact, more like him personally than like his policies. Some 48 percent think he’s a nice guy, while just 42 percent approve of his job performance.

But that personal favorability doesn’t translate into re-election support when voters are asked if Obama deserves a second term. Says Schoen: “Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”

Schoen’s presentation focuses mainly on Tea Party influence on the election, and postulates the effects of a third-party candidate from the Right in the 2012 presidential election.  However, there is more immediate data on this election as well.  A majority of 53% wants Republicans to control Congress as an outcome of the midterms, while only 36% want Democrats controlling Congress.  That more or less corroborates the gap found in Gallup polling on the midterm leanings from yesterday.  Overall, the Schoen poll shows a nine-point lead for Republicans on the generic Congressional ballot, 48/39.

Not only that, but the messaging of Democrats is falling flat.  Despite the hysteria about money supporting Republican candidates, only 29% of those likely voters polled by Schoen believe that will be the reason for a GOP takeover in one or both houses of Congress.  Fifty-three percent say it will be the result of “the perceived failed policies of Obama and the Democrats.”  That also dovetails with Greg Sargent’s analysis of the failure of another Democratic message, that Republicans have been too obstructionist in the last two years:

In a post yesterday about Mitch McConnell’s stated desire to ensure that Obama is a “one term president,” I noted that there’s no evidence to speak of that the Dem strategy of pillorying GOP partisanship and obstructionism has paid any dividends.

The internals of today’s New York Times poll seem to confirm this. They suggest that the public just isn’t prepared to believe that Republicans are any more partisan or obstructionist than Dems are. …

This, even though Dems have been relentlessly hammering Republicans as obstructionist, nakedly political and fully committed to nothing more than destroying the Obama presidency for over a year now. This suggests that voters quite properly view both political parties as political — in other words, people expectthem to try to do what it takes to win. Efforts to claim the moral high ground on who’s truly bipartisan and who isn’t come across as so much Beltway white noise.

It turns out that voters are much more interested in policy and track records than partisan bickering.  One particular point on policy seems worth noting from Schoen’s analysis, on the Bush tax cuts.  More than three-quarters of voters want the tax rates extended for the middle- and working-class earners, hardly a surprise, although 17% oppose this.  But a majority wants them all extended, 50/40, preferring to keep money in the private sector.

And perhaps that’s why voters are beginning to prefer the oft-maligned George W. Bush over Barack Obama.  It’s worth noting that Bush managed to pass his economic policies with much smaller Congressional majorities than Obama has enjoyed … until now.


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

Democrat’s used to whine about 5% employment when Bush was President.

Now they are telling us that we have to learn to live with double-digit unemployment.

I’d rather live without Democrats in office.

NoDonkey on October 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Democrat’s used to whine about 5% employment when Bush was President.

Now they are telling us that we have to learn to live with double-digit unemployment.

Hold on… didn’t the country have some kind of financial crisis that caused the high unemployment? Or was it caused by some Obama policy? Is it because he didn’t lower taxes again?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Pollster Douglas Schoen, who partners with longtime Democratic strategist Mark Penn at Penn Schoen & Berland, has taken his final look at the midterm electorate and finds it extraordinarily hostile to Barack Obama.

..good man. No, excellent man. Fair, reasonable, and the type of Dem — along with Juan Williams, and Pat Caddell, and, yes, even Bob Beckel, who should get right to rebuilding the Dem party on November 3rd once they throw the progressive trash out.

The War Planner on October 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Hold on… didn’t the country have some kind of financial crisis that caused the high unemployment? Or was it caused by some Obama policy? Is it because he didn’t lower taxes again?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

It was caused by 40 years of idiot democrat policy and spending.

No go stuff yourself tool.

Inanemergencydial on October 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

A thousand apologies Ed, I haven’t logged in to comment in well over 4 months, but this one phrase just made it irresistible:

It turns out that voters are much more interested in policy and track records than partisan bickering.

This surprises… who?

TASS71 on October 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Wow so all African-Americans are off their rocker as well as most of the firemen and policemen who are union members?

I’d say you probably belong to the other 15% you mentioned.

Bradky on October 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Oh no!! I dared insult firemen and policemen!! Doesn’t matter if the union is the UAW or SEIU or a policeman union. They vote Democrat exclusively. They do this because they know that even if unemployment is 30%, they will be taken care of. They will get their pension, benefits and retire in their 40s.

And yes AAs will vote for Obama 95%+ like they did in 2008. You know this very well. Only a fool doesn’t recognize this which is why you posted what you did.

angryed on October 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Hold on… didn’t the country have some kind of financial crisis that caused the high unemployment? Or was it caused by some Obama policy? Is it because he didn’t lower taxes again?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Didn’t the financial crisis happen due to a housing bubble which was caused by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd forcing Fannie and Freddie to accept risky loans from banks who were themselves forced to lend to low income people and minorities who the banks knew very well would never pay the money back?

And wasn’t Obama a Senator for 4 years while all this was going on and did nothing to stop it? And wasn’t Harold Rainse, the CEO of Fannie Mae a ket ally and contributor to Obama’s campaign?

But none of those facts matter when all you have to say is BOOOOOOOOOOSH.

You are a very pathetic troll.

angryed on October 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Hold on… didn’t the country have some kind of the Democrats intentionally create a huge financial crisis that caused the high unemployment so they could get their candidate elected President?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Fixed!

You were a lot funnier at Captain’s Quarters.

Del Dolemonte on October 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I’m optimistic that we can crush the democratics this year, but socialism is a cruel disease that survives no matter what we do. In a few years it will take hold and flare up again; all it takes is a new generation of ignorant new voters willing to experiment with the nation, and fall for the next empty headed messiah that comes along.

All we can do is fight to limit the damage that the regular epidemics cause.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Did anyone else see this article that Drudge had up for a while this morning where even democrats are trying to figure out how to get Obama out of office before his term is over?

behiker on October 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

That has been floating around for a couple of weeks, but is probably WND material.

Del Dolemonte on October 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM

I’m optimistic that we can crush the democratics this year, but socialism is a cruel disease that survives no matter what we do. In a few years it will take hold and flare up again; all it takes is a new generation of ignorant new voters willing to experiment with the nation, and fall for the next empty headed messiah that comes along.

All we can do is fight to limit the damage that the regular epidemics cause.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2010

Our system is such that every new generation must fight for freedom. As it should be. That way our freedom isn’t merely some gift, but something in which each generation takes part.

But oh boy, some generations seem less capable than others.

JonPrichard on October 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Pollster Douglas Schoen,
..good man. No, excellent man.
The War Planner on October 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Personally I find it annoying no one pronounces his last name correctly.

If they get “Boehner” is pronounced “Bahner”
“Sean” is pronounced “Shawn”
Jay Schroeder is pronounced Jay Shrader (L. A. Raiders)

Why can’t the get Schoen is pronounced Shane?

Danke Schoen

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Bush beats bush league Barry? Who’d a thunk it?

chickasaw42 on October 28, 2010 at 3:50 PM

FIRED UP…………………………..

READY TO GO…………………….

canopfor on October 28, 2010 at 1:20 PM
========================================
Nope! It’s “Fried Up! Take it To Go”!
/What Obama yells when Michelle the food cop isn’t around.

Key West Reader on October 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Key West Reader:Lol:)

canopfor on October 28, 2010 at 3:55 PM

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

If you only want to look at the short term trend you will find December 2006 Unemployment at 4.6% and $136 billion in debt.

Starting in January 2007, with the new Congress, totally in Dem control, Pelosi started spending like a drunken Sailor (considering her $100K bar tab for her first 2 years, she was acting like a drunken Sailor as well LOL)

Unemployment tracks almost perfectly with Congress spending.
The more Congress spent, the higher the Unemployment climbed. This is beyond debatable.
Is this strictly empirical or is there an actual correlation, I don’t know.

What is currently keeping $trillions$ on the sidelines today is the fear that Obama/Dem controlled Congress doesn’t have a clue what they are doing, nor will they listen to the folks that do have a clue.

So long as Obama/Dem controlled Congress is in power the economy will not improve.

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Starting in January 2007, with the new Congress, totally in Dem control, Pelosi started spending like a drunken Sailor (considering her $100K bar tab for her first 2 years, she was acting like a drunken Sailor as well LOL)

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

$50 grand a year for booze? That’s shameful.

Del Dolemonte on October 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM

You know who this helps? Jeb Bush.

Emperor Norton on October 28, 2010 at 12:59 PM

very interesting point

NY Conservative on October 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Blame Bush–>Slurpee–>We’re not exhausted–> ?

Dems are having a hard time coming up with memes that resonate. They’re a far cry from, “Hey, Hey, LBJ..” or “No Justice, No Peace…”

Lefty slogans just aren’t what they used to be.

INC on October 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM

$50 grand a year for booze? That’s shameful.

Del Dolemonte on October 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM

You should see the Botox bill.

Key West Reader on October 28, 2010 at 4:51 PM

INC on October 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Hey Hey
Ho Ho
Barack Obama’s
Got to Go!

There’s a lefty slogan we can all get around.

Key West Reader on October 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Personally I find it annoying no one pronounces his last name correctly.

If they get “Boehner” is pronounced “Bahner”
“Sean” is pronounced “Shawn”
Jay Schroeder is pronounced Jay Shrader (L. A. Raiders)

Why can’t the get Schoen is pronounced Shane?

‘Round here the Schoen family pronounces their name, “shone.” Just a regionally difference I guess; means “beauty” either way.

2L8 on October 28, 2010 at 5:48 PM

Didn’t the financial crisis happen due to a housing bubble which was caused by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd forcing Fannie and Freddie to accept risky loans from banks who were themselves forced to lend to low income people and minorities who the banks knew very well would never pay the money back?

According to who, Rush or Glenn Beck? I don’t recall ever hearing Alan Greenspan or anyone of consequence on Wall Street blame the financial crisis on subprime loans. Those closest to the near-collapse of our financial system point to CDOs and other derivative products that distorted risk and spread it throughout our financial system. Yes, suprime loans represents a couple hundred billion in terrible losses, but it takes far more to nearly destroy the American system of capitalism.

As for the housing bubble, it was driven by many of the same dynamics behind every previous bubble in human history. Artificially low interest rates and tax rates that give consumers excessive buying power added fuel to the fire.

If you didn’t know it, you’re repeating a set of political talking points, not real facts as you claim.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Starting in January 2007, with the new Congress, totally in Dem control, Pelosi started spending like a drunken Sailor (considering her $100K bar tab for her first 2 years, she was acting like a drunken Sailor as well LOL)

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Actually, the numbers show a far different trend. The largest new domestic spending bill enacted by Congress during the period was the prescription drug benefit, and it was championed by Bush. (Many on both sides of the aisle, including McCain, tried to reform the bill as it included massive pork for drug companies.)

As the numbers show, Republicans increased the federal budget from $1.9 tril in 2000 to $2.8 tril by end of 2006- an increase of almost 50%.

In Bush’s last two years, when you clam Bush had no power over federal spending due to Peolosi, the budget increased from $2.8 tril to $3.1 tril, an increase of about 8%

So before you wish for a return to the days of Bush fiscal policies, consider how federal spending increased- both domestically and militarily- and how that affected the national debt and the deficit.

2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted by President Bush)
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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Holy Fudge. Are you kidding?

hawkdriver on October 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

Polls don’t lie. People prefer Bush. History will start treating him better in short order.

hawkdriver on October 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM

Bush III in 2012 for President.

Highplains on October 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Moesart on October 28, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Yet the mere mention of his name calls your ilk out like Pavlov’s bell.

Not relevant?

Heh.

massrighty on October 28, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Jeb Bush for President!

Highplains on October 28, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Is it because he didn’t lower taxes again?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Since you mention it…

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy – proven every time it’s tried.

So, Obamas’ tax policies may not have caused the current crisis, but it would be better for the economy if he would cut taxes broadly.

massrighty on October 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM

How can people say that they personally like this narcissistic, arrogant a$$ of a human being? Because they don’t want to be considered racist. I wish someone would ask me.

Cindy Munford on October 28, 2010 at 8:19 PM

As the numbers show, Republicans increased the federal budget from $1.9 tril in 2000 to $2.8 tril by end of 2006- an increase of almost 50%.

Hum? Why did you leave out the May 2001 thru Jan 1 2003 when the Dems controlled the Senate?
That time period includes Bush Tax cuts and both wars.

In Bush’s last two years, when you clam Bush had no power over federal spending due to Peolosi, the budget increased from $2.8 tril to $3.1 tril, an increase of about 8%

Bush doesn’t have power over spending. No President does. Ultimately, only Congress can spend our money. That’s kinda basic. Did you graduate from the 8th grade?

In case you don’t already know this, the Senate is part of Congress.

2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted by President Bush)

This is interesting, for the first year of Obama, he was tied to a budget that Bush put forward?

Should we along the same line blame Clinton for blowing the “surpluses forever” in 2001?

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at 8:21 PM

From the opening paragraph:

Pollster Douglas Schoen,

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Coincidence?

massrighty on October 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM

48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

In related news 48 percent say James Buchanen was a better president than Obama has been.

Bobbertsan on October 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM

48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

In related news 48 percent say Warren Harding was a better president than Obama has been.

Bobbertsan on October 28, 2010 at 8:52 PM

48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

In related news 48 percent say Franklin Pierce was a better president than Obama has been.

Bobbertsan on October 28, 2010 at 8:53 PM

48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.

In related news 48 percent say they’d rather dig up Millard Fillmore and prop him up behind a desk in the Oval Office than vote for Obama again.

Bobbertsan on October 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Hum? Why did you leave out the May 2001 thru Jan 1 2003 when the Dems controlled the Senate?
That time period includes Bush Tax cuts and both wars

Yes, the Republicans only controlled the White House and Congress. Are you aware of any major policies at the time that were initiated by the Dems?

I’m not questioning that the wars had a high cost or saying that the tax cuts didn’t contribute to the deficit. I was only addressing the statement that the Democrats were responsible for the major spending increases- when in fact the largest increases occurred when the Republicans were firmly in control.

Bush doesn’t have power over spending. No President does. Ultimately, only Congress can spend our money. That’s kinda basic. Did you graduate from the 8th grade?

You are one very witty cad. Each year the President submits a budget to Congress and, as a result of the President’s veto power, the two branches engage in negotiation over any major spending bills. Were you unaware of this?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM

You are one very witty cad. Each year the President submits a budget to Congress and, as a result of the President’s veto power, the two branches engage in negotiation over any major spending bills. Were you unaware of this?

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 8:55 PM

No I was not unaware of this. Were you aware that that is only tradition and not constitutionally required? The Constitution give the House the responsibility over spending?

Bobbertsan on October 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Since you mention it…

Lowering taxes stimulates the economy – proven every time it’s tried.

So, Obamas’ tax policies may not have caused the current crisis, but it would be better for the economy if he would cut taxes broadly.

massrighty on October 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Generally speaking, it’s true that tax cuts do stimulate the economy. That’s why it’s a good idea to keep taxes high enough to balance the budget during good times, enabling deep tax cuts when you have a massive economic crisis.

Because Bush had already lowered taxes far below the ability of the government to cover its outlays, no one seriously suggested new, deep cuts when the economy tanked. Since we failed to save up for a rainy day, the country can no longer afford a brand new round of deep tax cuts. The deficit is simply too high.

If you look at past balance sheet recessions such as the lost decade in Japan, tax cuts have a muted effect. When consumers are dealing with asset losses (lower house and stock prices) and high debt, they tend to use tax refunds to pay down their debt rather than spend it. So even if the country could afford deeper tax cuts, most economists say that you’re unlikely to see a huge impact on the economy.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:03 PM

I was only addressing the statement that the Democrats were responsible for the major spending increases- when in fact the largest increases occurred when the Republicans were firmly in control.

Why must you keep lying?

Here’s the link again. Let me know if you have any difficulty reading a line chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Chuck Schick on October 28, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Why must you keep lying?

Here’s the link again. Let me know if you have any difficulty reading a line chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

Chuckie, do you have to keep calling everyone you disagree with names? I posted the raw budget numbers because looking at the deficit as a % of GDP is a misleading stat when the economy is undergoing convulsive change. Yes, during a deep recession, the deficit as a % of GDP increases. This is a historical fact. Likewise, when the economy is temporarily propped up by a major bubble fueled by debt spending, the deficit is artificially low. This is basic economics.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM

That’s why it’s a good idea to keep taxes high enough to balance the budget during good times, enabling deep tax cuts when you have a massive economic crisis.

Because Bush had already lowered taxes far below the ability of the government to cover its outlays, no one seriously suggested new, deep cuts when the economy tanked. Since we failed to save up for a rainy day, the country can no longer afford a brand new round of deep tax cuts. The deficit is simply too high.

If you look at past balance sheet recessions such as the lost decade in Japan, tax cuts have a muted effect. When consumers are dealing with asset losses (lower house and stock prices) and high debt, they tend to use tax refunds to pay down their debt rather than spend it. So even if the country could afford deeper tax cuts, most economists say that you’re unlikely to see a huge impact on the economy.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Typical Democrat who either learned economics from Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin or one of their disciples!

You NEVER “keep taxes high” for any reason and certainly not to “balance the budget!”
Instead:
Cut spending!
Stop spending!
Keep federal expenses strictly to those mandated by the Constitution!

bayam is living proof as to why we need this election next Tuesday so badly: so we can vote out the other Lib Dem bums that “think” like him OUT.
“Taxes” aren’t the government’s money–it’s our money!
And lest you all forget, this Congress wasn’t able to pass a budget.
Scoundrels and bastidges all!

Jenfidel on October 28, 2010 at 9:22 PM

This is interesting, for the first year of Obama, he was tied to a budget that Bush put forward?

Should we along the same line blame Clinton for blowing the “surpluses forever” in 2001?

DSchoen on October 28, 2010 at

8:21 PM

– Weird no response. /

CWforFreedom on October 28, 2010 at 9:23 PM

This is basic voodoo economics.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM

FIFY.
And face it, you are lying, so Chuck isn’t really calling you names.

Jenfidel on October 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Hmmm the Dems cannot even pass a budget and I am supposed to be impressed? Bayam = toady.

CWforFreedom on October 28, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Chuckie, do you have to keep calling everyone you disagree with names? I posted the raw budget numbers because looking at the deficit as a % of GDP is a misleading stat when the economy is undergoing convulsive change. Yes, during a deep recession, the deficit as a % of GDP increases. This is a historical fact. Likewise, when the economy is temporarily propped up by a major bubble fueled by debt spending, the deficit is artificially low. This is basic economics.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM

I noticed you didn’t post Obama’s budgets, Bayam, so let’s include that as well:

# 2011 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
# 2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
# 2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
# 2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
# 2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
# 2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
# 2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
# 2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
# 2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
# 2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
# 2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

Bush: $3.1 trillion – 1.9 trillion = $1.2 trillion
Obama: $3.8 trillion – $3.1 trillion = $.7 trillion

You also forgot Obama’s only served 2 years:

Bush: $1.2 trillion / 8 = 150 billion per year average
Obama: $.7 trillion / 2 = 350 billion per year average

So Obama has increased spending at a 233% rate over Bush.

Lying by omission is still lying.

Chuck Schick on October 28, 2010 at 9:27 PM

And face it, you are lying, so Chuck isn’t really calling you names.

Jenfidel on October 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM

I love loser like Bayam who when called out for lying claim name calling. Quite entertaining though predictable.

CWforFreedom on October 28, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Lying by omission is still lying.

Chuck Schick on October 28, 2010 at 9:27 PM

Quit calling it names./

CWforFreedom on October 28, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Those closest to the near-collapse of our financial system point to CDOs and other derivative products that distorted risk and spread it throughout our financial system…but it takes far more to nearly destroy the American system of capitalism.

On Sept. 15, 2008, someone pulled $550 MILLION out of the market in less than 2 hours, thus threatening the liquidity of the whole system.
That’s what cause the crisis.

Artificially low interest rates and tax rates that give consumers excessive buying power added fuel to the fire.

The only “fire” this adds fuel to is happy citizens, you Communist!

If you didn’t know it, you’re repeating a set of political talking points, not real facts as you claim.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM

Pardon me, but you’re the one mouthing the Dimocrats’ talking points and distorting reality from a Marxist point of view.

Jenfidel on October 28, 2010 at 9:31 PM

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:03 PM

You used a lot of words to support this premise;

That’s why it’s a good idea to keep taxes high…

Never a good idea.

Then, you said something that, taken on its’ own, has merit.

The deficit is simply too high….

So, cut spending.

massrighty on October 28, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Well. I guess I’m bitter, clingy, slurpee-sippin’, too stupid to think when I’m scared, frustrated, and maybe even goin’ tribal. I miss W. Oh…and VOTING as well.

thebookkeeper on October 28, 2010 at 9:45 PM

I’m hoping President George W. Bush throws out the first ball when the World Series moves to Texas. That would be appropriate.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

There’s really only one thing to say in a situation like this:

Count it!

Good Solid B-Plus on October 28, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I “miss” crr6 and all the other trolls… Are they hiding already?

Khun Joe on October 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Khun Joe on October 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM

If you long for the company of trolls, they’re all in the Christine O’Donnell thread.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2010 at 10:05 PM

I’m hoping President George W. Bush throws out the first ball when the World Series moves to Texas. That would be appropriate.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2010 at 9:55 PM

68+ mph breaking ball.

In the strike zone, heading out.

massrighty on October 28, 2010 at 10:22 PM

This is basic voodoo economics.

bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:12 PM

FIFY.
And face it, you are lying, so Chuck isn’t really calling you names.

Jenfidel on October 28, 2010 at 9:24 PM

You probably don’t realize this, but the term ‘voodoo’ economics was coined by Bush I to describe the supply side economics nonsense that W. and his failed policies represent.

It doesn’t refer to the mainstream economic theory that most Presidents, from both parties, practiced before George W. decided to run up a huge deficit while ignoring the advice of mainstream corporate CEO’s from his own party. Remember that his own Treasury Secretary and former Alcoa CEO, Paul O’Neill was strongly opposed to Bush’s tax cuts- predicting that it would lead to the massive deficits the nation faces today.

Many people here claim to support capitalism, and then loudly oppose our most successful capitalists. Such people are nothing more than fair weather friends of our capitalist system.

bayam on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Bayam, your incoherant babbling impresses absolutely no one here. Why don’t you go off and tweet about Taylor Swift?

Chuck Schick on October 29, 2010 at 2:07 AM

You probably don’t realize this, but the term ‘voodoo’ economics was coined by Bush I to describe the supply side economics nonsense that W. and his failed policies represent.
bayam on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 AM

Of course, I realized it!
Bush 41 was wrong, of course, also, and this was one of several reasons I wouldn’t vote for him the 2nd time and voted for Ross Perot in ’92.
Supply-side economics works!
Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were right.

Jenfidel on October 29, 2010 at 2:11 AM

It doesn’t refer to the mainstream economic theory that most Presidents, from both parties,

Uh, wrong again!
The Dem Presidents perfected the art of Socialism (Communism Lite) from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to LBJ, leading up to Zerobama.
Most Republicans nurtured Capitalism, except Richard Nixon
with his awful “wage/price controls.”

Paul O’Neill was strongly opposed to Bush’s tax cuts- predicting that it would lead to the massive deficits the nation faces today.

President Bush 43 had succeeded in almost halving the deficit to $261 billion before the Fall 2008 crash (and TARP) came along, so it turns out we could not only afford the tax cuts, but a war on 2 fronts, as well.
The massive deficits we enjoy today are all down to Obama, the Dem Congress and ObamaCare & Porkulus.

Many people here claim to support capitalism, and then loudly oppose our most successful capitalists. Such people are nothing more than fair weather friends of our capitalist system.

bayam on October 29, 2010 at 1:31 AM

No one will ever mistake you as being any kind of a friend of “our capitalist system!”
So, you’ve got that going for ya’!

Jenfidel on October 29, 2010 at 2:18 AM

If you look at past balance sheet recessions such as the lost decade in Japan, tax cuts have a muted effect. When consumers are dealing with asset losses (lower house and stock prices) and high debt, they tend to use tax refunds to pay down their debt rather than spend it. So even if the country could afford deeper tax cuts, most economists say that you’re unlikely to see a huge impact on the economy.
bayam on October 28, 2010 at 9:03 PM

bet one of those economists is krugy, right?

As far as the bs loans not the only factor?

They were the rainstorm before the dam broke

get it dummy?

Sonosam on October 29, 2010 at 6:02 AM

Another great thing is that less taxes means localities keep the money home which is good

nothing like sending volumes of dough to the people who didn’t have a single thing to do with earning

we know how that gos

Sonosam on October 29, 2010 at 6:07 AM

I’m optimistic that we can crush the democratics this year, but socialism is a cruel disease that survives no matter what we do. In a few years it will take hold and flare up again; all it takes is a new generation of ignorant new voters willing to experiment with the nation, and fall for the next empty headed messiah that comes along.

All we can do is fight to limit the damage that the regular epidemics cause.

slickwillie2001 on October 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Wise, and worth repeating. Liberalism is the way of the naive.

scotash on October 29, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Don’t count your 2012 chickens yet. Ronald Reagan’s approvals dipped below 40% in 1982. If the economy improves. . .

MrLynn on October 29, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Don’t count your 2012 chickens yet. Ronald Reagan’s approvals dipped below 40% in 1982. If the economy improves. . .

MrLynn on October 29, 2010 at 9:05 AM

It almost sounds as if you hope things don’t get better sooner rather than later.

Bradky on October 29, 2010 at 9:16 AM

bet one of those economists is krugy, right?

No, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, one appointed by Reagan, the second by Bush. This topic has been covered by both the WSJ and Barrons.

President Bush 43 had succeeded in almost halving the deficit to $261 billion before the Fall 2008 crash (and TARP) came along

You really have a child-like understanding of economics. The low deficit was based on an artificial, bubble economy fueled by deficit-spending. It was never sustainable and the economy will never return to a bubble-rate period of growth anytime in the near future. Falling middle class incomes during the period indicate that things didn’t work very well at all.

bayam on October 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM

It almost sounds as if you hope things don’t get better sooner rather than later.

Bradky on October 29, 2010 at 9:16 AM

It definitely sounds as if your mattress is soaked with liquid nitrogenous waste.

Inanemergencydial on October 29, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Bayam, did you see my numbers above? Do you understand now why we call you a liar? Even worse, you’re a really inept liar.

The stimulus was a failure, Bayam. Prepare to meet the Reaper in 4 days. We’ll start cleaning up you mess.

Chuck Schick on October 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Chuck Schick on October 29, 2010 at 11:41 AM

Chuckie, would you stop playing the role of self-righteous victim and owner of the truth? The name-calling is getting old. Unlike other posters here- many of whom are making valid points that I completely agree with- you don’t have anything valuable to add to the conversation.

bayam on October 29, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Chuckie, would you stop playing the role of self-righteous victim and owner of the truth? The name-calling is getting old. Unlike other posters here- many of whom are making valid points that I completely agree with- you don’t have anything valuable to add to the conversation.

bayam on October 29, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Was my math incorrect?

Chuck Schick on October 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2