Gallup: More people still blame Bush for poor economy than Obama

posted at 4:01 pm on June 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

I keep waiting for these numbers to start moving.

Annnnnny day now.

Quinnipiac’s polled this question repeatedly and their numbers are strikingly static too:

I’ve always assumed that the flatness of this data is due to people reserving judgment on O’s economic record for as long as they can. They like him personally and want to give him the benefit of the doubt so they’re waiting to see if he might yet still have a few bonanza jobs reports up his sleeve. But now I don’t know. The May jobs report was so awful and the prognosis for the rest of the year so grim that I figured we’d see some movement in this metric this time. Nope.

Either voters are willing to give him until the bitter end to show progress — the suspense is already mounting for the October jobs report — or the “who’s more blameworthy?” question doesn’t mean as much as I thought. Bruce McQuain at Q&O thinks it’s a big barrel of nothing, in fact, that voters don’t care whether Bush or Obama made more of this mess but whether Romney or Obama is best able to clean it up. Could be, but that’s not the sort of election that the GOP wants. They want a pure referendum on the economy’s performance during O’s term, not a choice between whether Mitt or The One is a better repairman. Remember, while independents are deeply skeptical of Obama’s economic plans, they’re not crazy about Romney’s either. And implicit in the judgment that the state of the economy is still the prior president’s fault fully three and a half years after he left office is the idea that he and the financial crisis left America in a hole so deep that it’s not fair to fault Obama for failing to dig us out of it. If a head coach leaves the team after it finishes 0-16 and his replacement manages to finish 4-12, does the replacement get hired for the next season? Yeah, possibly, because some fans will conclude that while his record was under .500, he inherited a disaster and showed just enough progress that it’s worth seeing if he can build on it. That, in a nutshell, is O’s argument for a second term. Team America still reeks economically but we’re playing slightly better, so why not let coach have another season to see what he can do? It’s not like Romney is Bill Parcells, a superstar free-agent coach with multiple rings. He’s more like … Dick Vermeil or something. (Analogies involving terrible football teams come naturally to a Jets fan.)


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

After Obama’s sterling speech today, I’m sure the masses will fall in line and remember that it is all Bush’s fault. /

Decoski on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

More people still blame Bush for poor economy than Obama

..the First Doofus blathers and stubs his toe..AND..along comes AP, A.K.A Captain Buzzkill.

The War Planner on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

More Americans still ignorant as rocks.

Plus, media, spontaneously combust for dereliction of duty and Obama-caca consumption. It’s not Beluga caviar, fools.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

If the Republicans agree not to nominate GW Bush will the MSM agree to stop running these stories? Didn’t think so.

txmomof6 on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

So, there’s a lot of stupid people out there.
Water is still wet, right?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 14, 2012 at 4:05 PM

It’s obvious that Bush dug us in so deep that Obama will need at least 7-8 terms to dig us out. I say we give them to him.

Kataklysmic on June 14, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Bush has his share of blame, but he doesn’t come close to Obama. Too bad the Dog Eater is blameless for 40% of the population.

Archivarix on June 14, 2012 at 4:05 PM

The important thing is that Romney can’t be blamed for this economy, and that is the only attack line that Obama has, to link Romney to Bush the way he linked McCain to Bush.

It’s time for Romney to start pushing his plan for the next 4 years, and to stand by it as Reagan did when he beat Carter. If he wins with a clear plan of his own as opposed to relying on Obama fatigue, he will have one hell of a mandate to implement it when sworn in.

Daemonocracy on June 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM

“The May jobs report was so awful and the prognosis for the rest of the year so grim that I figured we’d see some movement in this metric this time. Nope.”

Would you want to be called a racist…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’m still waiting for a story that says those polled are just screwing with the pollsters to give the media false hope.

nobar on June 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM

txmomof6 on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

This is Del grade moment…A+

Is a Q-poll about as left as a PPP poll? D/R/I 60/10/30

DanMan on June 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Most people are clueless about economics. I was with a chemist friend last night … He talked like a MSNBC commercial. Kook-fringe crazy.

Jaibones on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

It only took 2 years for Reagan’s policies to start fixing the damage done by Carter. Assuming the economy really is Bush’s fault, why does it take 8 years for Obama to fix it?

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

If a head coach leaves the team after it finishes 0-16 and his replacement manages to finish 4-12, does the replacement get hired for the next season? Yeah, possibly, because some fans will conclude that while his record was under .500, he inherited a disaster and showed just enough progress that it’s worth seeing if he can build on it.

I’ve used the head coach/GM analogy with others before, but the better comparison is to think of Obama as a coach/GM in the middle of his 4th season with the franchise, not his 1st. He’s repeatedly delivered losing seasons while routinely going over the salary cap with nothing to show for it. If anyone’s an NBA fan, think of Obama as Isiah Thomas running the Knicks after the Scott Layden(i.e. Bush) era.

Doughboy on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

There’s never any “What did Bush actually DO to cause this?” questions. THAT’S what I want to see.

NoFanofLibs on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
– Lenin

Like all good comrades who studied under Saul Alinsky, Obama knows that the more he harps on “The Bush Economy,” the more people who will accept it as fact… and deflect the blame from himself.

VastRightWingConspirator on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

If the economy sours again, as it has been recently, is it still Bush’s fault, or can we talk about Obama’s recession?

El_Terrible on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The Azzie in Chief forget to pay the father’s day lunch tab, with veteran fathers, mind you, after he claimed that Bush left him with the “Martini and steaks bill”.

What an utter buffoon is president of the world.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

If they still like him, they’re not paying attention.

d1carter on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM


Gallup: More people still blame Bush for poor economy than Obama

I have one word to describe “those people.” MORONS!!

Liberty or Death on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

There’s never any “What did Bush actually DO to cause this?” questions. THAT’S what I want to see.

NoFanofLibs on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

They don’t want facts getting in the way of the narrative.

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I want to see the answers to the followup question: How exactly did Bush screw up the economy?

The answers to that one would give more of an indication as to why the numbers aren’t moving.

Spannerhead on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I blame the press for this. They’ve let Obama get away with blaming Bush for way too long. Here’s a bet, come January they have a epiphany and it’s going to be Romney’s economy before February.

bflat879 on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

NoFanofLibs on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Great minds… :)

Spannerhead on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I don’t believe for a minute that most people “like Obama personally.” They’re just afraid of being called a racist.

Bevan on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Meanwhile, a second poll released today confirms an earlier one….. that Romney is basically tied in the polls with Obama.

Romney has taken the lead in WI.

Obama is going to have to play defense in states he would be able to take for granted.

cat_owner on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Read the data. The difference between the two numbers can be explained by Republicans who blame Bush for the mess, at least in some part. These are probably fiscal cons who think Bush spent far too much. Hardly endorsements for The One.

It’s wrong to assume everyone blaming Bush is blaming conservative Republican policies.

TheLastBrainLeft on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

It only took 2 years for Reagan’s policies to start fixing the damage done by Carter. Assuming the economy really is Bush’s fault, why does it take 8 years for Obama to fix it?

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Elementary my dear. Carter didn’t consult Hitler and Satan about how to best ruin the economy the way Bush did. Apples and oranges.

Kataklysmic on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The GOP certainly misgoverned on domestic policy from 2001-2007, BUT… the economy inherited by Baracka Obama had little to do with Republican policies. Unfortunately the average voter never took the time to dig in to the root causes of the crisis, accepting the “Republicans & Wall St.” meme all too readily… even as John McCain & The GOP establishment offered little to no rebuttal.

The financial crisis (and the mortgage bubble that caused it) had dirty little Democrat fingerprints ALL OVER IT.

SAMinVA on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

With mainstream media propagandizing with constant lies and deception for the liberal left, they will not stop until our country is on its knees.Anyone who believes somebody as obviously incompetent and corrupt as Obama and his gang of thugs is a brainwashed lemming to be used by this crooked media as tools to drive this country into the dirt. If Obama is re-elected, this our country will deserve what we will surely become. Ariel Durant said, ” A great civilization cannot be conquered from without until it destroys itself from within.” Barry Soetero and his corrupt media is trying to make that happen.

volsense on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my friend is the beginning of the end of any society.

Don’t know who said it, but they captured it well.

The land is full of moochers and a few billionaire looters.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Plus, media, spontaneously combust for dereliction of duty and Obama-caca consumption. It’s not Beluga caviar, fools.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

It’s NOT?!?!?!?!?!?

Gee, now that you mention it, that caviar did taste a little funny.

UltimateBob on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I don’t believe for a minute that most people “like Obama personally.” They’re just afraid of being called a racist.

Bevan on June 14, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I don’t either.

cat_owner on June 14, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I want to see the answers to the followup question: How exactly did Bush screw up the economy?

The answers to that one would give more of an indication as to why the numbers aren’t moving.

Spannerhead on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

1. Bush couldn’t do anything about the Community Reinvestment Act and the nasty enforcement of the act because the Democrats blocked his efforts to fix that problem.

2. As a result of #1 PLUS the ability to sell the toxic assets, Bush ended up doing TARP (which Obama voted for). This did the most damage. So, naturally, Obama made it the baseline for future spending.

So it’s all Bush’s fault.

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Doing the same thing, expecting different results, is the definition of…

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

The important thing is that Romney can’t be blamed for this economy, and that is the only attack line that Obama has, to link Romney to Bush the way he linked McCain to Bush.

Daemonocracy on June 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Romney can one-up Obama on that actually. We’ve seen how the latest (failed)attack by the Obama campaign is to go after Romney’s record as MassachusettEs governor. Well, all Mittens has to do is cite his sub-5% unemployment rate he left the state with. If Obama tries to spin that by claiming Romney doesn’t deserve the credit, he can simply retort that Obama is in effect giving the props to Bush.

It’s a pick your poison scenario for Obama. Either credit Romney for the state’s unemployment rate. Or credit the federal government which means Dubya.

Doughboy on June 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Put aside polls for a minute and look at every election since 2008. The GOP is clobbering the dems: Sen Brown, Christie, McDonnell, 2010 shellacking, all those elections in WI. All these were in some way campaigns vs. Obama. Heck, the NY-9 special election campaign was entirely waged by Turner as a referendum on Obama. The GOP hadn’t won there since the 1920s, and the goy beat the Jew!

Have the dems made headway anywhere electorally since 2008? Basically, no. Why will this change short of meaningful turnaround in the economy? It won’t.

Uncledave on June 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

This poll shows nothing more than the large reservoir of stupidity among the American public. It doesn’t mean very much as Bush isn’t running.

Bush himself, and the GOP, are to blame for never bothering to explain what actually caused the credit crisis – leftist government meddling in the debt markets, perverting the valuation off debt, turning loan originators into nothing but brokers making commissions and offloading their bad paper to Fannie and Freddie (to turn around and make more bad paper for more commissions), and generally destabilizing our whole debt market (through he inevitable and important arbitrage) until it collapsed. McShame didn’t bother to even try to explain this either, but in his defense, he’s probably too friggin stupid to understand it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I want to see the answers to the followup question: How exactly did Bush screw up the economy?

Spannerhead on June 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

He and Greenspan are culpable. The Greenspan fault is the most unreported secret.

However, the leftists are way into the housing and banking scandals, and Obama promised in 2009 to know what he took over, to fix it…

Reagan took over a big mess and didn’t blame Carter for 4 full years.

Obama is an unaccountable Muenchhausean/Pinocchean Liar. Only fools fall for more.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Either voters are willing to give him until the bitter end to show progress — the suspense is already mounting for the October jobs report — or the “who’s more blameworthy?” question doesn’t mean as much as I thought. Bruce McQuain at Q&O thinks it’s a big barrel of nothing, in fact, that voters don’t care whether Bush or Obama made more of this mess but whether Romney or Obama is best able to clean it up. Could be, but that’s not the sort of election that the GOP wants.

Maybe it has something to do with how the question is asked…I have seen polls in which Congress was included and they beat both presidents.

However, when asked directly….do you approve of how Obama is handling the economy…the numbers are bad for Obama..a majority do not approve.

The truth is I think most people just answer the question this way because Bush was president when the meltdown happened…that does not mean that they think Obama is doing a good job now.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

VastRightWingConspirator on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Yes. But what do you expect? The Dems have MSNBC and every media.

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney need their own TV network.

IlikedAUH2O on June 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

i would like a breakdown between the components of “moderate” and “great deal”. i assume a lot of us even would tag bush with “moderate”, and then obam of course with “great deal”.i’d like to see that breakdown. it proabbly kills the narrative and thats why they dont publish it.

t8stlikchkn on June 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I’d really like a pollster to dig deeper into these responses. If someone blames Bush, ask that person to describe specific Bush policies that caused recession.

It’s crap. I keep hearing Obama and his flunkies saying the same thing without identifying specific policies that Bush pushed or passed that coud have caused a recession.

I want some reporter somewhere to ask the question, “what Bush policies caused this mess Mr. President?”

Charlemagne on June 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I think those numbers reflect the public blaming Bush for starting it but not necessarily for the current problem, they assign Obama blame for our current malaise.

crazywater on June 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

In any event, no one in America has any excuse for not realizing that the Dog-Eating Retard has contributed mightily to our inability to recover from the credit crisis and to make us even more vulnerable to credit crisis 2.0 when that rolls around. Think of the worst predictions everyone was making about credit crisis 1.0 and then factor in that we have turned untold trillions of private debt into public debt (not unlike what the feral government forced through its Fannie/Freddie scheme and forcing loan originators to make sub-sub-prime loans to people who didn’t deserve to get any loan at a rate under 17%), the Fed is holding a balance sheet pumped up to $3 trillion and the national debt of a size beyond imagination.

Yep. It ain’t pretty and it is all due to the union thug payoffs and total waste of trillions by the Indonesian Dog-Eater and his junta. And if that isn’t good enough, the private health insurance system has been thrown into disarray by their anti-American suicide bombing with ObamaCare … and that won’t return to what it was just by getting rid of that insane piece of Soviet legislation.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Have we seen the internals for this poll?

hachiban on June 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That’s not fair to Obama. Obama is much more talented than Bush at spending other people’s money.

RBMN on June 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

There’s never any “What did Bush actually DO to cause this?” questions. THAT’S what I want to see.

NoFanofLibs on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

This is true..and as far as that is concerned what could he do to stop it? When he approached Congress with reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..they blew him off..Maxine Waters said If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.. less than two years later FM had to be taken over by the Treasury.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I want some reporter somewhere to ask the question, “what Bush policies caused this mess Mr. President?”

Charlemagne on June 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I’m pretty sure he’d say they were caused by tax cuts, defense spending, and health care programs that weren’t adequately funded with tax revenues. Wrong answers, but I think he said as much in the speech today.

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Lastly, for credit crisis 2.0, when banks are only paying .5% (if that) for deposits, no one has any reason to keep their money in the banks. These insanely low interest rates invite bank runs, since the bank serves no purpose other than being a safe-deposit box (with fees for holding the cash). In that event, money is safer in an actual safe deposit box than in a bank account.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

I don’t think voters will forget the word “bailout”, and how it was Bush that pushed it. He certainly started the ball rolling.

Then Obama got into a Bugatti Veyron and hit the ball at 253 MPH.

MadisonConservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Everybody, AP included, can relax. A saturation of TV ads in October will get people to fixate on Obama’s crappy record. Remember, people are so saturated with MSM bias that it is only in October that people remember WHY to vote Republican.

Were it not for paid advertising in the last 3 weeks of any campaign, the GOP would never elect anyone.

matthew8787 on June 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

More people believe the White House spin, than understand economics

EliTheBean on June 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

The question “Who is to blame for the economy?” doesn’t make any sense. For example, I blame FDR and LBJ for the state we are in, does that mean I somehow feel good about Obama?

I blame Obama for not being able to correct the situation. The better question would be “Do you hold the current president for not improving the economy?”.

maminov on June 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Have we seen the internals for this poll?

hachiban on June 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

..they polled the WH staff and the Obama campaign.

The War Planner on June 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Polling “adults?”

dogsoldier on June 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM

He’s more like … Dick Vermeil or something. (Analogies involving terrible football teams come naturally to a Jets fan.)

..watch it, Buster! As a UCLA graduate, I still think of Dick Vermeil as a pretty decent coach!

The War Planner on June 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Bush himself, and the GOP, are to blame for never bothering to explain what actually caused the credit crisis – leftist government meddling in the debt markets, perverting the valuation off debt, turning loan originators into nothing but brokers making commissions and offloading their bad paper to Fannie and Freddie (to turn around and make more bad paper for more commissions), and generally destabilizing our whole debt market (through he inevitable and important arbitrage) until it collapsed. McShame didn’t bother to even try to explain this either, but in his defense, he’s probably too friggin stupid to understand it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I have heard Republicans try to explain this time and again.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I have scratched my head over this until I remembered that — despite tripling taxes — FDR couldn’t solve unemployment until WWII spending ramped up. Nevertheless, FDR got elected to two terms and then a few more. Then again, FDR spewed a lot of federal dollars at constituencies that would reelect him.

You can teach an old dog new tricks if you don’t eat the dog first.

PopsRacer on June 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Polling “adults?”

dogsoldier on June 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM

..how’d the interview go, dog? Ya get the job? We’re all pullin’ for you out here!

The War Planner on June 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I just wish they would stop blaming Lincoln for the Civil War. It’s getting old.

timberline on June 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Oh I know. Regarding the reason so many people still blame Bush for the economy’s current state, I’m less interested in the ways he’s actually to blame than how the respondents to the survey think he’s to blame.

I have a hunch a typical answer would go something like, “Well, y’know, he just did stuff that screwed up the economy. N’stuff.”

Spannerhead on June 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

From the open thread, source identified

This one?

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
― Adrian Rogers

novaculus on June 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

This is absolute proof that the majority of Americans are under educated, or illiterate, or just plain deaf and dumb.

BMF on June 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

This begs the question, will employers hold back on highering in August/September in order to tank Obama and whether other employers are holding back now in order to stack highering right before the election so Obama can say, “See how great I am?”

xdwall on June 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Newsflash: the people who voted for Barack Hussein Obama because he’s black are NEVER going to change their minds about that.

logis on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I have heard Republicans try to explain this time and again.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

A few of them, but not too many times and not with clarity. Michael Steele actually did a half-decent job of it during the 2008 campaign, which is why I was at first enthusiastic about his appointment to head the RNC, but then he just sunk into the slime for some unknown reason. Maybe he had been coached earlier? I don’t know.

I have never heard any Republican talk about the feral government intentionally pervert the debt market, which is the key. It is that forced perversion which got arbbed through, super-charged by Fannie and Freddie and ultimately destabilized the whole debt market – the bedrock of our system.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I don’t think voters will forget the word “bailout”, and how it was Bush that pushed it. He certainly started the ball rolling.

Then Obama got into a Bugatti Veyron and hit the ball at 253 MPH.

MadisonConservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

I disagree…it was the Democrats in Congress who pushed that as much as Bush..in fact, at the time when the markets all over the world were shaky people expected the government to do something to stop the slide.. Besides, if they were just upset about bailouts they would be more upset with Obama.

The steps that Bush took were small compared to Obama. In fact he only used a small portion of that TARP money and that money has been paid back. So I don’t think it was the bailouts that drove the public sentiment. It was the meltdown itself.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Never underestimate the power of the MSM.

bw222 on June 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I’ve always assumed that the flatness of this data is due to people reserving judgment on O’s economic record for as long as they can. They like him personally and want to give him the benefit of the doubt so they’re waiting to see if he might yet still have a few bonanza jobs reports up his sleeve.

This is something I can’t get over. Laura Ingraham had a guest earlier this week who addressed Obama’s speaking and personality. He was some sort of psychologist/physical demeanor expert. He said that, while Obama’s laughing or smiling during his speeches, if you watch his eyes you can see discomfort, that he doesn’t even believe what he’s saying and that he has a severe dislike/disdain for the people he’s speaking to.

He’s a poseur, and it’s difficult to see people actually liking Obama personally.

AubieJon on June 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I don’t disagree that the Dems were also responsible, but Bush, as well as others like Paul Ryan, put their seal of approval on it. They boosted it to the media, and don’t forget this immortal line that, sadly, will sum up Bush’s second term:

I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system…

MadisonConservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I have a hunch a typical answer would go something like, “Well, y’know, he just did stuff that screwed up the economy. N’stuff.”

Spannerhead on June 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No, I think Obama gave a sort-of answer in the speech today. It’s just that the answer doesn’t make sense. He said the debt was caused by war spending and tax cuts (and unpaid-for health care programs).

The reasons it doesn’t make sense:

1. Obama got us into more conflicts. And it’s a bad idea to cut defense.

2. Obama admitted it was bad for the economy to increase taxes during a recession when he extended the tax cuts. He can’t have it both ways. Either tax cuts got us into this trouble, or tax cuts help us get out of it.

3. Obamacare? And he thinks it was Bush’s health care programs that put us in debt?

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I have never heard any Republican talk about the feral government intentionally pervert the debt market, which is the key. It is that forced perversion which got arbbed through, super-charged by Fannie and Freddie and ultimately destabilized the whole debt market – the bedrock of our system.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I have heard Karl Rove talk in detail about the dozen attempts that Bush made to get some kind of handle on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and how he was rebuffed every time by the Democrats in Congress.

I have heard a lot of Republicans talk about the use of easy money in the housing market and to be honest, I think most people do know that the subprime loans help drive this. To be honest it was not even just government that helped create this situation anyway. Look at Europe. People all over the world have been living beyond their means for years.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I don’t think voters will forget the word “bailout”, and how it was Bush that pushed it. He certainly started the ball rolling.

Then Obama got into a Bugatti Veyron and hit the ball at 253 MPH.

MadisonConservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Yep. And many of us made the specific point that, aside from the bailout being ridiculously stupid, it then put so much power into the Presidency that if the Indonesian socialist Dog-Eater got in he would go Rottweiller wild with it, which he certainly did.

Bush really chewed the pooch on TARP. Congress had a role in defending the integrity of our monetary system, but these idiots in Washington can’t seem to understand the difference between the monetary system and the economy. They treat them as if they are the same. Congress is Constitutionally charged with managing the monetary system but has no business mucking around in the economy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

This is absolute proof that the majority of Americans are under educated, or illiterate, or just plain deaf and dumb.

BMF on June 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Way to sound like a liberal when things don’t go your way.

MadisonConservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Bush has his share of blame, but he doesn’t come close to Obama. Too bad the Dog Eater is blameless for 40% of the population.

Archivarix on June 14, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Bush, and Republicans in congress, are mainly to blame. They started it and then passed the ball to Obama to make it worse.

rickv404 on June 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Consider the source. Gallup has an agenda.

Christian Conservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Ok so they believe Bush caused the bad economy now the question is can Obama fix it? he can run against Bush but Bush isnt running for president Romney is. So far everything they have thrown at Romney has come back to bite them.

ldbgcoleman on June 14, 2012 at 4:41 PM

More Americans still ignorant as rocks.

Schadenfreude on June 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

.
I believe that’s an overly harsh criticism of rocks, you’ve made there.

What did they ever do to you?

listens2glenn on June 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I don’t disagree that the Dems were also responsible, but Bush, as well as others like Paul Ryan, put their seal of approval on it. They boosted it to the media, and don’t forget this immortal line that, sadly, will sum up Bush’s second term:

I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system…

MadisonConservative on June 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

They did that because they felt they had no choice..that the alternative would be a collapse of our financial system. Now, it is easy after the fact to say that was not going to happen, but truth be told, we can not know that. I think that the steps they took in the first weeks probably did stop the slide..but that does not mean that everything that came after was a good thing.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I think most people do know that the subprime loans help drive this. To be honest it was not even just government that helped create this situation anyway. Look at Europe. People all over the world have been living beyond their means for years.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

No, it was just our government that did this. They forced lenders to originate loans that were bad paper – at the threat of civil and criminal consequences.

And the fact that people call these “sub-prime” loans really shows how far we have gotten from the truth. All mortgages have been sub-prime loans. The prime rate was the rate given to AAA companies with more than enough collateral to cover it. Everything else was “sub-prime”. What we now call “sub-prime” are, in fact, “sub-sub-sub-prime” loans. The language has been perverted almost as much as the debt valuations.

Rove didn’t do jack to clear this up. I saw lots of his ferret face during the campaign and after and he did not explain this and certainly never took the explanation of the cause of the credit crisis to be something that warranted staying on it until America understood it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Ok so they believe Bush caused the bad economy now the question is can Obama fix it?

ldbgcoleman on June 14, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I think the more important question is, “Does he really want to fix it?” I think the answer is no, but you’ll never get anyone to ask the question, and Obama would never answer it truthfully anyway.

The Rogue Tomato on June 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM

OK, so if people believe that Bush is still responsible for the state of the economy then it has to follow that these people believe that a President — any President — has considerable control over the economy. Ergo, does it not also then follow that his successor, Obama, either (a) is inept or (b) is incapable of repairing the economy?

natasha333 on June 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM

To be fair, most of our mess goes to Clinton and Greenspan. Unregulated derivatives, easy money, repeal of g-s, and the mortgage mess have their origins in the 90s.

Chubbs65 on June 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM

It’s too bad for Obama that Bush isn’t running.

faraway on June 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM

No, no, no. I refuse to believe that there are ANY Americans out there except the very leftist of the left who think this is all Bush’s fault. I find that utterly unbelievable- as unbelievable as I find the idea that people still find Obama “likeable”. He isn’t, in my opinion, he never was. I can’t find an explanation for these numbers other than maybe, 68% of the population lets Brian Williams or Katie Couric do their thinking for them.

BettyRuth on June 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM

There’s never any “What did Bush actually DO to cause this?” questions. THAT’S what I want to see.

NoFanofLibs on June 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

That is the thing I do not understand NoFanofLibs. Whenever I ask people the same question they cannot tell me one single piece of legislation that caused the financial crisis. Or the answer is always the wars, tax cuts for the rich, unpaid for entitlements. When I raise the issue these did not cause the financial crisis I get hysteria. Very weird.

ojfltx on June 14, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Bush really chewed the pooch on TARP. Congress had a role in defending the integrity of our monetary system, but these idiots in Washington can’t seem to understand the difference between the monetary system and the economy. They treat them as if they are the same. Congress is Constitutionally charged with managing the monetary system but has no business mucking around in the economy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

This does not make sense to me. On one hand people say that government was responsible for the situation in the first place and then they say that government had no role in dealing with the collapse. This was not just some market correction that was being driven by market forces. If those institutions had collapsed people would not have been able to cash paychecks..do business, the kind of panic that would have followed could have done even more damage than we saw.

It is easy to sit back years later and say it would have been better to just let it all go down, but believe me if that happened the GOP would not be looking at a possible win now.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

He’s more like … Dick Vermeil or something. (Analogies involving terrible football teams come naturally to a Jets fan.)

Hey, Dick Vermeil did win a Super Bowl with the Rams.

Bitter Clinger on June 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM

This does not make sense to me. On one hand people say that government was responsible for the situation in the first place and then they say that government had no role in dealing with the collapse.

Leftist government policies (that were un-Constitutional) caused the collapse. The federal government is not allowed to move into everything just because idiots in government over-extended and messed something up. The federal government is responsible for the monetary system, not the economy. I’m not sure why this is difficult to understand.

This was not just some market correction that was being driven by market forces. If those institutions had collapsed people would not have been able to cash paychecks..do business, the kind of panic that would have followed could have done even more damage than we saw.

It is easy to sit back years later and say it would have been better to just let it all go down, but believe me if that happened the GOP would not be looking at a possible win now.

Terrye on June 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

The monetary system is the foundation of our economic system and is what Congress is charged with protecting. The economy is not part of Congress’ purview, though it seems to be accepted wisdom on many sides that our federal government is supposed to run our economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If the credit crisis was handled even close to correctly we would have had an awful drop for a couple of quarters and within a year or so been growing at 8%, if not more. Instead, we are dragging the bottom for years and years and are more susceptible to really going down without the ability to recover when the eyewall hits us for credit crisis 2.0.

I said all of this when we were talking about TARP and when every prediction people made about it was wrong.

BTW, TARP was never used to buy even one toxic asset … until GM and Chrysler, but I don’t think even you would classify them as the toxic assets that the legislation was talking about.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

It was 71/48 in the fall of 2010… And how did that work out for Team O?

This is a nothing burger.

kevinkristy on June 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Actually it is the fault of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank with the assitance of Alan Greenspan.

bopbottle on June 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Obama can keep running against Bush…

albill on June 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

You’d have to trick people into thinking DEMOCRATS that controlled BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS carried out Bush policies those last 2 years for this to work or that Republicans, not Democrats ran Congress the last 2 years.

Oh right, that’s what they’re doing.

Wagthatdog on June 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Fools! Thats right the o’s are 0′s logo. This doesn’t surprise me really, many folks thought FDR did a great job with an economy he inherited. The media has spent as they did back then a lot of time covering for the both.

Bmore on June 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

the=them

Bmore on June 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

In admitting Bush is to blame it also admits you aren’t smart enough to fix something an idiot caused.

Wagthatdog on June 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Bush, and Republicans in congress, are mainly to blame. They started it and then passed the ball to Obama to make it worse.

rickv404 on June 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Republicans didn’t control Congress the last 2 years of Bush’s Presidency. The Democrats did.

Del Dolemonte on June 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2