Poll: Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

posted at 10:01 am on September 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

No wonder Democrats tried their best to run away from the Reagan Metric this weekend.  Surrogates such as David Axelrod, David Plouffe, and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley tried dodging the inevitable question in every presidential election: are we better off now than we were four years ago?  A new poll from The Hill shows why Democrats want to change the subject every time that question gets asked:

A majority of voters believe the country is worse off today than it was four years ago and that President Obama does not deserve reelection, according to a new poll for The Hill.

Fifty-two percent of likely voters say the nation is in “worse condition” now than in September 2008, while 54 percent say Obama does not deserve reelection based solely on his job performance.

Only 31 percent of voters believe the nation is in “better condition,” while 15 percent say it is “about the same,” the poll found. Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.

The poll, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, has an R+2 likely-voter sample at 34/36/30.  That’s nearly identical to 2010′s 35/35/30 turnout, and given the enthusiasm deficit seen this year among Democrats, looks like a very defensible model for the general election.  The main questions have much more separation than a 2-3 point swing in partisan affiliation would impact, anyway.

These numbers look bad for Obama all the way down the line.  On the better off question, most demos offer majorities for “worse,” including critical demos like 18-39YOs (33/50 better/worse), those earning between $20K-$40K (25/58), and especially independents (21/60).  Even women offer a strong plurality of failure (33/47).  Only Democrats (64/20), liberals (62/14), and those making more than $100,000 per year (52/38) think things have improved.

The first question asked in this poll is the re-election query: Based solely on job performance, does President Obama deserve to be re-elected?  Obama loses this question — which gets asked before the better off question or anything else — by 14 points.  Even a majority of women (40/51) say no, and the exact same percentage occurs with the younger voter demo.  Obama loses this by 29 points among independents (32/61).  It’s a stunning, broad, and deep rejection of Obama’s first term as President, hardly an “incomplete.”  And this is just two months before voters go to the polls to make this very choice.

This demonstrates the danger for Team Obama in running on their record.  They cannot allow this election to be about Barack Obama and his agenda.  They have to make it about Mitt Romney and how deeply scaaaaaaary Republicans are.  That’s why Democrats dodged and weaved when asked the simple question that goes to the heart of voters’ decisions in presidential elections, especially when incumbents ask for a second term.  To answer this at all, either positively or negatively, turns the election into a referendum on Obama — a report card, if you will — which will inevitably lead to Obama flunking his final exam.


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

Drudge has a brand new headline.

Let’s ask all of those people what they think.

TFGRP, you are done.

Bishop on September 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

The Dems can run from their record but they can’t hide from the voters in November. It’s going to be the most epic electoral smackdown in American history.

HotAirian on September 4, 2012 at 10:06 AM

31%? I didn’t know Obozo had that many campaign bundlers.

HoustonRight on September 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Number of MSM outlets mentioning this poll this week: Zero.

There will be a full-fledged blackout of these numbers.

rockmom on September 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

who makes up that 31 percent of ignorant voters???????????????????????????? Whenever I see an Obama bumper sticker, I look closely to make sure the drive actually has a head.

chai on September 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

BUSH

cmsinaz on September 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM


Poll: Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

…who knew they could get phone service in caves?

KOOLAID2 on September 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM

No, we aren’t better off. And saying “it’s not as bad as it had been 4 years ago” doesn’t cut it. Limping along is not getting better.

A couple of months ago I got a reevaluation on what my house is worth for tax assessment purposes. It’s down 25%. That’s not better off than four years ago. And my next door neighbors have been trying to sell their house for the past 4 years. I think they’ve only had one offer. Who backed out.

rbj on September 4, 2012 at 10:09 AM

who makes up that 31 percent of ignorant voters???????????????????????????? Whenever I see an Obama bumper sticker, I look closely to make sure the drive actually has a head.

chai on September 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Government employees
African-Americans
LGBT
Liberal college professors

rockmom on September 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The Dems are spinning hard trying to innoculate themselves and O’Jesus that we’re “better off”.

Sorry, that dog ain’t a huntin’ Stephanie Cutterbutter.

….I’m not watching one moment of the lying liars lying at the Deathocrat Convention.

They can perform all the abortions, and hand out all the free condoms all they want on the floor but we’s notta watchin.

PappyD61 on September 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

That’s nearly identical to 2010′s 35/35/30 turnout, and given the enthusiasm deficit seen this year among Democrats, looks like a very defensible model for the general election.

pretty solid

ted c on September 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

all this and they didnt ask who they would vote for?

joepub on September 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Even women offer a strong plurality of failure (33/47).

wow. Are they not impressed with people dressed as giant virginias???

ted c on September 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

INGRAHAM: You’ve also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president’s argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it’s getting better?

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery.

OKAY MITTENS

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

54% of those surveyed do not feel Barry deserves another term. Unfortunately, “undeserved” does not equate “will not get”, when there are enough moonbats, lefties, racists and the dependence class.

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:12 AM

This demonstrates the danger for Team Obama in running on their record.

no wonder they’re running from their record….

ted c on September 4, 2012 at 10:12 AM

On November 6 2012 the majority of voters are going to ask themselves the simplest but most important question: “Do we want four more years of this misery and failure?”… Their answer would be “No, hell No”… It is that simple folks….

mnjg on September 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

The first question asked in this poll is the re-election query: Based solely on job performance, does President Obama deserve to be re-elected?

Obama loses this question — which gets asked before the better off question or anything else — by 14 points. Even a majority of women (40/51) say no, and the exact same percentage occurs with the younger voter demo. Obama loses this by 29 points among independents (32/61).

It’s a stunning, broad, and deep rejection of Obama’s first term as President, hardly an “incomplete.” And this is just two months before voters go to the polls to make this very choice.

This demonstrates the danger for Team Obama in running on their record.

Every single day the Dems have to defend their record……

…..is a day they aren’t on message demonizing Romney.

PappyD61 on September 4, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I like the capitalized “MITTENS” you added. It’s old school cool, like saying “Hey that car is cherry!” or “That chick is a fox!”

Bishop on September 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

It’s a stunning, broad, and deep rejection of Obama’s first term as President, hardly an “incomplete.” And this is just two months before voters go to the polls to make this very choice.

incomplete=fail

take it up with the registrar, champ.

ted c on September 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Other than just canning everyone at the Labor Department’s Bureau of Statistics and just issuing their own unemployment and economic growth numbers over the next 63 days, or a monumental gaffe by Romney or Ryan, it’s hard to see how these figures add up to a win for Obama.

Being minus-39 among independents on the ‘better off’ question means either they have to not show up at the polls, or Democratic turnout is going to have to far surpass 2008′s numbers. But while this sample is +2 R, it will be interesting to see what samples they use and what type of voters are polled this week and in the days following the convention.

jon1979 on September 4, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Crickets chirping big time

cmsinaz on September 4, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Based on this poll I think it’s fair to say that the polls showing a close race are using Affirmative Action Polling techniques.

bgibbs1000 on September 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM

and of those 31%, I’m sure that “better off” is merely a proxy for “we’re glad that Bush isn’t president anymore”

/terms.

ted c on September 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

How does this “recovery” stack up against past recoveries, Davida?

steebo77 on September 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery.

Except in The 0 Economy™. Where 31% are solidly attached to the government teet. It won’t be complete succes for 0 until its well over 50%, so there is still plenty of work to do. Or not? The 0 Economy™ is a strange model for success. Emphasis being on suc.

Bmore on September 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Anybody catch Tim Kaine on Moaning Joe this morning? He had his answer to the better off question and was firing off his list like a Gatling gun. One of his points was to mention the extraction of troops from “Bush’s unfunded wars!!!11!!!” and to his credit Joe S. asked him about his take on Obama’s tripling the troop level in Afghanistan.

Kaine’s response was Obama listened to his generals on the ground.

Joe: so you support the troop increase and funding it required?

train wreck ensued covered by laughter to get a quick change of subject

DanMan on September 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Rasmussen is showing that only 30% of voters in swing states think they are better off. Pretty consistent result with this poll. Now I hope they vote that way in November.

COgirl on September 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

54% of those surveyed do not feel Barry deserves another term. Unfortunately, “undeserved” does not equate “will not get”, when there are enough moonbats, lefties, racists and the dependence class.

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:12 AM

They are not energized enough to come and vote in the same numbers they did in 2008… Also at least 30% of the Obama voters in 2008 do not belong to these categories and many of them are going to vote for Romney instead…
The two most important metrics in this election are:
How many Obama 2008 voters are going to stay home in 2012.
How many Obama 2008 “White Voters” are going to switch and vote for Romney in 2012.

Per my elections prediction model, if 3% of Obama 2008 voters stay home and if 10% of Obama “White Voters” from 2008 switch and vote for Obama then Romney is going to win the elections…
Based on polling the “enthusiasm gap” is very large in favor of Republicans so 3% of Obama 2008 voters staying home in 2012 is a very probable scenario… Also based on polling Obama is losing 15% to 18% of his “White Voters” from 2008 so assuming that 10% of Obama “White Voters” from 2008 switching and voting for Romney in 2012 is a very probable scenario…
PS: In some states it even takes less than 10% of Obama 2008 “White Voters” to switch for Romney in 2012 in order for Romney to win these states…

mnjg on September 4, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

Gee, I can’t imagine why it’s so low.

Within the past 20 minutes

@AP

BREAKING: U.S. construction spending fell 0.9 percent in July, biggest drop in 12 months. -MM

Food-Stamp Use Climbed to Record 46.7 Million in June, U.S. Says http://bloom.bg/UpcUnp via @BloombergNews

@Reuters

Manufacturing sector shrinks for third straight month

@DRUDGE_REPORT

Record-high Labor Day gasoline prices greet Democrats in Charlotte

Flora Duh on September 4, 2012 at 10:23 AM

31% of the country does mortgage foreclosures and repossessions?

Booming business.

NoDonkey on September 4, 2012 at 10:24 AM

31% huh?

Yeah, this race is close.

LMAO.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on September 4, 2012 at 10:24 AM

TFGRP, you are done.

Bishop on September 4, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Bishop, a friendly suggestion (I mentioned this in a headline thread but it was pushed off the main page right after):

Since we all know JugEars & Stedman aren’t going to do anything about F&F, I wonder if it’s time to update the moniker to TFECP?

pain train on September 4, 2012 at 10:25 AM

31%? I think it is frightening that as many as one in three Americans thinks we’re better off now than we were four years ago. Damn, they must have drunk some primo KoolAid.

Scriptor on September 4, 2012 at 10:25 AM

How does this “recovery” stack up against past recoveries, Davida?

steebo77 on September 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM
——-

1
No two recoveries have the same set of circumstances, so beyond incredibly general 500,000 feet up assessments, comparing recoveries is meaningless.

2
It’s moronic to suggest that the economy is worse off than 4 years ago when it was at rock bottom.
4 years ago: jobs flooding away. Today: tiny job growth.
If you don’t like the speed of the recovery, then make that case.
If you don’t like the types of decisions Obama made to try to fix the economy, then state them and state your alternatives.

3
Do you wholeheartedly support all the bailing out Bush did?

4
If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Joe Biden was shown on Fox and Friends today shrieking twice to a crowd, “Osama Bin Ladin is Dead and General Motors is alive”.

Umm, that is a reason to vote for a 2nd term for these incompetent imbeciles? There are all kinds of wrong to that statement.

Thinking people know that bin Ladin would NOT be dead if Oloser had allowed Valerie Jarrett to scuttle the mission. She did that more than once (google white house insider, read what he said about that mission). Also, we know that the intel would not have been gathered without the Bush era policies in place that Oloser campaigned against in 2008.

And there are all kinds of wrong about General Motors. They stole that company from the legitimate bondholders. They screwed the taxpayers to payoff the unions. They circumvented real bankruptcy case law to get the union paid off. They screwed the laid off and forcibly retired salaried workers.

So why do these morons think chanting this phrase will sway voters and independents and undecideds?

karenhasfreedom on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

There will be a full-fledged blackout of these numbers.

rockmom on September 4, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Raaaaaaaaacist!

pain train on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/food-stamp-use-climbed-to-record-46-7-million-in-june-u-s-says.html

Barry further solidifying his base.

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:24 AM

That’s racist or something!

/

Doughboy on September 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM

31%? I didn’t know Obozo had that many campaign bundlers.

HoustonRight on September 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The number also includes union bosses, UAW members, incompetent teachers (confident that they’ll never be fired as long as a Dim in president), illegal aliens (now legal “Dreamers”), “investors” in “green” energy scams, ACORN agitators, and millions of the just plain ignorant.

AZCoyote on September 4, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Joe Biden was shown on Fox and Friends today shrieking twice to a crowd, “Osama Bin Ladin is Dead and General Motors is alive”.

Actually it should be “Osama Bin Ladin is dead, and General Motors is intubated”.

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Dems are whistling past the graveyard and this zombie economy is going to tear them to shreds…..

ted c on September 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM

That’s racist or something!

/

Doughboy on September 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Was it because the word “June” was used?

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Joe Biden was shown on Fox and Friends today shrieking twice to a crowd, “Osama Bin Ladin is Dead and General Motors is alive”.

Hey, Joe, plants like the one in Janesville, Wisconsin, are still closed and Gitmo is still open.

BTW, to quote George Will on GM:

“Today, “I am GM, hear me roar” is again losing market share, and its stock, of which taxpayers own 26 percent, was trading Thursday morning at $21, below the $33 price our investor in chief paid for it and below the $53 price it would have to reach to enable taxpayers to recover the entire $49.5 billion bailout. Roaring GM’s growth is in China.”

If you and Zero were to be reelected and GM should once again teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, what are you going to tell the American people when you start arguing that the company must again be bailed out?

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Poll: Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

31% huh?? Wow! that’s a lot of Dumb as Hell folks….

ToddPA on September 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Those that believe that we’re better off must be the new food stamps and welfare recipients.

cajunpatriot on September 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Was it because the word “June” was used?

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Exactly. Because June is not only a month, but a name. And black people have names. Need I say anymore?

Doughboy on September 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Joe Biden was shown on Fox and Friends today shrieking twice to a crowd, “Osama Bin Ladin is Dead and General Motors is alive”.

karenhasfreedom on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I’m not sure Barry can get too much traction with the “I killed Bin Laden” meme as justification for a second term; you can only kill the guy once.

Now GM on the other hand…

pain train on September 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM

No, Americans are not better off than they were 4 years ago:

* Unemployment: 7.8% Jan 2009, 8.3% now

* Median income: $54,983 then, $50,964 now

* Gas prices: $1.85 per gallon then, $3.78 now

* National debt: $10.6 trillion then, $15.9 trillion now

* Labour force participation rate: 65.7% then, 63.7% now

And, for that matter, can Democrats honestly say that they are better off than they were 4 years ago considering the fact that when Obama took office, they held:

* 56 Senate seats. It is 51 now (plus two independents who align mostly with the Democrats).

* 257 seats in the House of Representatives. It is 190 now (there are also three vacancies for seats last held by Democrats).

* 29 of the 50 governorships. It is 20 now.

* 4,073 state legislative seats. It is 3,319 now.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/manufacturing-sector-shrinks-third-straight-140450657.html

DNC opens to the bad news of the manufacturing sector and will close to the news of a bad job number.

Barry’s grade on the economy is “incompetent”.

bayview on September 4, 2012 at 10:37 AM

“Osama is dead and GM is alive, and we’ll kill em both again if we need to!”
*joe bite-me.

VegasRick on September 4, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Someone actually posted this to a Ryan-bashing thread on FB:

“Four years ago people were taking their own lives, foreclosures were out of control, we were at war, housing market was a disaster, people with pre-existing conditions could not get health insurance, banks were not giving loans…etc…how can Joel Olsteen(Ryan) sit there and say things are worse ? He is out of touch with the country.”

I was unaware of any of those things changing? Sadly, it was said by a good friend who is certainly no moron. I know he’s a lib, but found that shocking coming from him.

hollygolightly on September 4, 2012 at 10:37 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

spending and an explosion in regulations you moron…I bet you have two brothers named Daryl

DanMan on September 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM

karenhasfreedom on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

It’s because they have nothing else..

Static21 on September 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Exactly. Because June is not only a month, but a name. And black people have names. Need I say anymore?

Doughboy on September 4, 2012 at 10:33 AM

It starts with a “J”……yea….dogwhistle. nuff said.
/

VegasRick on September 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM

They (31%) are the government workers who have not lost wages, even if they have had to forgo “increases” or “steps.” They have no idea what the normal people have had to put up with, and think taxpayers without any money are simply meanies who don’t want to pay more in taxes so government workers can make more than they do, retire at 55 and do not have to wait until they are elderly to collect their pension like the rest of us.

Fleuries on September 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM

And there are all kinds of wrong about General Motors. They stole that company from the legitimate bondholders. They screwed the taxpayers to payoff the unions. They circumvented real bankruptcy case law to get the union paid off. They screwed the laid off and forcibly retired salaried workers.

karenhasfreedom on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

The sad thing about GM is that even after the massive infusions of taxpayer cash, the company still sucks, and will likely be in bankruptcy within the next decade (maybe even quicker, if Romney is elected and stops the government fleet purchases that are artificially inflating GM’s sales numbers).

Obama poured tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer cash into this lousy company, just to delay the inevitable for a few years. Of course, by the time GM implodes and the public finally knows the truth, Barry will be living large in his $35 million mansion by the sea in Oahu.

AZCoyote on September 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 10:34 AM

excellent! You and ITguy have the stats.

DanMan on September 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

First and foremost we are not better than 4 years ago:

January 2009, unemployment rate 7.8%… August 2012 unemployment rate 8.3% with the fuddging of numbers… In actuality it is over 10% U3 and over 17% U6…

We have the longest continuous unemployment rate over 8% since WW II…

January 2009 debt 10.5 trillion dollars… August 2012 debt 16 trillion dollars…

January 2009 average income in the US was $ 54,000… August 2012 the average income in the US is $ 50,000…

January 2009 gas price $ 1.78… August 2012 Gas price $ 3.8

We have the lowest percentage of labor force participation compared to the overall population since WW II…

This so called reovery is the worst on record by any measure… It is the lowest continous GDP growth since WW II… Just search “worst economic recovery on record” and you will get hundred of thousands of hits including many reports by no other than the liberal media…

mnjg on September 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Check the economic growth numbers prior to 1996 and then after. And tell me what changed. ;)

lorien1973 on September 4, 2012 at 10:41 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

spending and an explosion in regulations you moron…I bet you have two brothers named Daryl

DanMan on September 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM
———-

awww you must’ve hated those surpluses under Clinton eh

you give Bush a pass on Iraq/Afghanistan spending but as soon as Obama takes over you whine about it

enjoy your choir-provided kool-aid of denial

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Barack Obama — 2010

Looks like you’ll get to be neither, Mr. President.

Dusty on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

That is very simple… It is called the DOTCOM BOOM and it has nothing to do with Clinton or the taxes…

mnjg on September 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

spending and an explosion in regulations you moron…I bet you have two brothers named Daryl

DanMan on September 4, 2012 at 10:38 AM
———-

awww you must’ve hated those surpluses under Clinton eh

you give Bush a pass on Iraq/Afghanistan spending but as soon as Obama takes over you whine about it

enjoy your choir-provided kool-aid of denial

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Never did respond to the questions about the “recovery”, eh DRywall?

So which McKenzie brother are you, Bob or Doug?

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on September 4, 2012 at 10:59 AM

1
No two recoveries have the same set of circumstances, so beyond incredibly general 500,000 feet up assessments, comparing recoveries is meaningless.

The same thing can be said for elections.

2
It’s moronic to suggest that the economy is worse off than 4 years ago when it was at rock bottom.
4 years ago: jobs flooding away. Today: tiny job growth.
If you don’t like the speed of the recovery, then make that case.
If you don’t like the types of decisions Obama made to try to fix the economy, then state them and state your alternatives.

Alternatives have been passed by the House many many times, only to be bottled up in Reid’s Senate. No budget in 3+ years, despite being required. The Dems are not interested in the least about “fixing the economy”, but might be interested in holding on to power.

3
Do you wholeheartedly support all the bailing out Bush did?

Nope, few at Hot Air did, actually. But BHO has far exceeded that waste of money by factors of 10, helping only unions and cronies. Smart Power!

4
If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Conveniently forgetting something called the Tech Bubble aren’t you? Growth came after the 2004 election and “Triangulation”, something Barry has not even the slightest intention of doing.

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Should have known that was you again…

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on September 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

The growth came from a tech boom and the CGR cut, as was admitted by the CBO and the Washington Post. As the Post wrote:

Clinton, in essence, was lucky to become president just as a revolution in computer and information technologies was unleashed.

Clinton signed the tax increases into law on 10 August 1993. Let’s look at the numbers as to how things were following the downturn of two decades ago.

• The economy was out of recession in March of 1991. This is em, er…before Clinton announced in October of that year that he was running for president, and almost two and a half years before President Clinton signed his tax law.

• In the twelve months leading up to the tax signing (August 1992-July 1993), the economy gained 2,023,000 jobs, which is 168,000 jobs per month.

• In the six months (February-July 1993) leading up to the tax signing, the monthly average job gain was already 208,000, which shows that the economy was growing stronger by the month, well before the bill was signed.

• The unemployment rate peaked July 1992 — more than six months before Clinton stepped into the Oval Office, and more than twelve months before Congress voted on the tax bill. In fact, the rate lost almost a full percentage point in the twelve months leading up to the tax signing.

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average reached a low (of less than 2,400) in October 1990, and then things turned around, which is em…say…three years before your Clinton taxes “gave us” a good economy!

• From its recession low of minus 2,400, the Dow grew almost 50% to approximately 3,600 before we got to August 1993. This amounts to a 16% annual gain if any Dem had his/her money in an Index fund piggybacked to the Dow.

• From 1992 to 1997, CBO estimated, revenue increased at an annual average of 7.7 percent in nominal terms, or about 2.4 percentage points faster than the growth of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy. CBO Deputy Director James L. Blum in 1998 attributed only 1 percentage point of that extra tax revenue to the 1993 budget deal. The rest, he said, came from capital gains.

• The economy started to slow at the end of 1994 and early 1995 and by the end of the year, GDP had nearly returned to its 1993 level. In 1995, the annual report of the United States Trade Representative was already claiming that “[T]he United States market has hard limits on its growth; we have a mature economy and economic growth is beginning to slow.”

The big expansion happened when Clinton CUT the capital gains rate…

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

*1994 I meant, oops

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on September 4, 2012 at 11:02 AM

In 1995, the total amount of venture capital invested was $8 billion. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again.

The 1997 Tax Cut & Its Affect On Taxable CG Income (billion dollars)

1993: 36…..(emergence from recession)
1994: 36
1995: 44
1996: 66
1997: 79
1998: 89
1999: 112
2000: 131….(Dot-com bust, 10 March 2000 and recession begins followed by 9/11.

* The economy averaged 4.2% real growth per year from 1997 to 2000–a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax rise.

* Employment increased by 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period.

* Real wages, however, grew at 6.5%, which is much stronger than the 0.8% growth of the preceding period.

* Total market capitalisation of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95%.

* Between 1994 and 1999, realised capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded, with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30% of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP.

As for Bush, when the GOP was last in control of Washington, it had racked up 52 straight months of economic expansion, 10.777 million jobs created, a 3.2% GDP, a 4.5% unemployment (which means full employment), a DJIA at 12,398.01, etc….. then the Democrats took over Congress on 3 January 2007.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Poll: Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

And not a one of them pays taxes.

minnesoter on September 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM

49% are on welfare now.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

don’t you wish you had freedom of speech up there Drywall?

DanMan on September 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

No one gives GWB a pass, though he does love his country.

Clinton only ‘woke up’ after the congress went against him. Look it up.

Still, Clinton, compared to this inept moron, are like zynith and the abyss on the economy and much else.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2012 at 11:13 AM

zynith = zenith

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM

This nincompoop needs Clinton to speak for him.

Heh, the Clintons will vote for Romney. They hate his innards.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Poll: Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

Alternative Headline: 31% of the American Public are batshit crazy.

With Glint of Steel and speed of hand the knife doth cut so fast the victim feels not the mortal wounds.

SWalker on September 4, 2012 at 11:17 AM

If tax cuts are supposed to lead to growth, then how come 8 years of Bush tax cuts didn’t create more growth than 8 years of Clinton with tax increases?

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:26 AM

You seem to have a very poor grasp of history. The Bush tax cuts applied to everyone and actually reduced the number of people paying income tax on the low end of the scale. The tax cuts passed in response to the 9/11 economic hit were successful in continuing economic growth despite the impact of that attack on US soil. During the Bush years, up until the democrats took over the legislative branch in 2007, unemployment was at record lows, even below that which economists had previously stated was full employment (i.e, below 5%). So, prior to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, we had a booming economy. The collapse was a direct result of democrat policies (CRA and the housing bubble), so pretty much, your whole premise here is epic fail.

AZfederalist on September 4, 2012 at 11:17 AM

OKAY MITTENS

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

…we snaked out the drain to the septic field…just for you!

KOOLAID2 on September 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Based solely on job performance, does President Obama deserve to be re-elected?

What else would it be based on? I wonder why they used the qualifier.

Missy on September 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM

31%? All government employees or government contractors. Tbh I thought it would be a bit higher.

This has been an AWESOME 4 years if you are sucking on the government teat either directly or through cronyism.

Otherwise…uh…not so much.

CorporatePiggy on September 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM

awww you must’ve hated those surpluses under Clinton eh
Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

If Clinton raised taxes and then the government operated at a surplus, doesn’t that mean taxes were too high?

Goldenavatar on September 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

awww you must’ve hated those surpluses under Clinton eh
Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

The Federal government hasn’t run a true surplus since 1957.

I guess you are one of those that considers yourself “in the black” when you raid your kids’ piggy banks and college funds then hide your deficit spending behind “unified budgeting.”

“So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin–all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.”

Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8712130

“An overall “downsizing” of government and a virtual end to the arms race has contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the “baby-boomers” start to retire.”

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm

“In the late 1990s, the government was running what it — and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps — called budget “surpluses.” But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the “surpluses.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

“Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.”

http://usgovinfo.about.com/

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

awww you must’ve hated those surpluses under Clinton eh
Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

The Federal government hasn’t run a true surplus since 1957.

I guess you are one of those that considers yourself “in the black” when you raid your kids’ piggy banks and college funds then hide your deficit spending behind “unified budgeting.”

“So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin–all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.”

Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8712130

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM

“..and those making more than $100,000 per year (52/38) think things have improved.”

..of course they do; they are clueless and have prospered while everybody else has been left in their wake.

Basically, “I got mine, screw you folks!”

The War Planner on September 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM

My 23 year old son got a business finance degree in December. Since that time he has had a grand total of 4 interviews and we live in a supposed good economy in the DFW area. It’s the same everywhere they want the degree plus 2, 4, or 6 years of experience. The economy is so bad that folks are tripping over themselves to get here and take these jobs and they have the experience so my kiddo and many just like him can’t even get their foot in the door. He’s tried temp agencies, he’s offered to work for free as an intern still nothing. So yeah, the economy is much worse than 4 years ago. I knew this was coming. I sat in my car on that cold November evening in 2008 crying because my son was just starting college and I knew what he was facing. Paul Ryan’s speech was directed towards my son and his generation except that my son didn’t vote for Obama so no fading poster on his wall. The only silver lining is he and my husband and I paid as he went so no student loans hanging over his head. We have GOT to get rid of Obama so my son and millions like him can start their lives.

neyney on September 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Democrats set to move Obama’s big speech from 74,000-seater outdoor stadium to 20,000-seater indoor arena???

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198206/Democrats-set-Obamas-big-speech-74-000-seater-outdoor-stadium-20-000-seater-indoor-arena.html

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Gee Dave. Do you need a cigarette, yet?

I must say the pimp smacking is epic. Little Leaguers really shouldn’t step on the field against the Pros.

Sorry about ‘yer bad luck.

98ZJUSMC on September 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM

neyney on September 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Feel for you and your son, and kudos for the pay-as-you-go !
That can be a real strain, but a superb accomplishment.
Sure wish hubby could afford to hire somebody, but ain’t gonna happen with this admin. Sigh.
(in DFW, too, here)

pambi on September 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Resist We Much on September 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Just imagine how thrilled Rywall and his must be, the charlatans.

Schadenfreude on September 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM

there is always a recovery.

OKAY MITTENS

Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:11 AM

The recovery will begin on Novbember 7. Maybe sooner if the writing becomes so visible on the wall it becomes impossible to ignore.

By the way, how’s your prince getting along, speaking of no clothes…

Tenwheeler on September 4, 2012 at 1:14 PM

awww you must’ve hated those surpluses under Clinton eh
Dave Rywall on September 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM
If Clinton raised taxes and then the government operated at a surplus, doesn’t that mean taxes were too high?

Goldenavatar on September 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Word.

Tenwheeler on September 4, 2012 at 1:16 PM

neyney on September 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Feel for you and your son, and kudos for the pay-as-you-go !
That can be a real strain, but a superb accomplishment.
Sure wish hubby could afford to hire somebody, but ain’t gonna happen with this admin. Sigh.
(in DFW, too, here)

pambi on September 4, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Thanks so much Pambi. It’s tough on him because as Paul Ryan said he’s ready to start his life. He can’t even get an interview so right now he’s looking for any kind of job. What a great example eh? The poor kid worked his way through college, paid for over half his costs, got his degree and now he can’t find a job anywhere. I know what businesses are holding on to their money. No one knows what this disaster-in-chief will do to business yet and there is still the looming Obamacare debacle. This is why we have to defeat Obama. I firmly believe that once Mitt is elected and Obamacare is repealed businesses will once again use their start-up capital and jobs will be created. For the sake of my son and now my daughter in her sophmore year in college I pray that Mitt is elected.

neyney on September 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM

are we better off now than we were four years ago?

An even better question is, “Are you better off now than you were SIX years ago?”

Six years ago, Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. And Republicans had gone 12 straight years holding a majority (2+ out of 3) of those three (House, Senate, and Presidency).

In November 2006, voters gave control of the House and Senate over to Democrats, who took office January 3, 2007.

The recession we experience was NOT the “Bush Recession”, it was the “Pelosi/Reid Recession”. And Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton all actively participated in that Democrat majority that drove the economy into the ditch.

ITguy on September 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate on 01/03/2007. The budget for FY 2007 was already in place, so the beginning of Democrat majority control of all spending really began on 10/1/2007 with the start of FY 2008.

At the end of FY 2007, on 09/30/2007, the total national debt was $9,007,653,372,262.48

The Total National Debt was just over $9.0 Trillion when Democrats took majority control of spending.

Today, the Total National Debt passes $16.0 Trillion.

The Democrats have added $7.0 Trillion to the national debt in less than 5 years. Over $7.0 Trillion in less than 60 months. Over $117 Billion each and every month for almost 5 years. And the picture is even worse if you start with FY 2009 and look at just the last four years!

At the end of FY 2008, on 09/30/2008, the total national debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49

By the end of 9/30/2012, the total national debt will be over 6 Trillion higher than that… so Obama and the Democrats have been adding over $1.5 Trillion in new debt each and every year for the last four years!

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

ITguy on September 4, 2012 at 4:02 PM

My 23 year old son got a business finance degree in December. Since that time he has had a grand total of 4 interviews and we live in a supposed good economy in the DFW area. It’s the same everywhere they want the degree plus 2, 4, or 6 years of experience. The economy is so bad that folks are tripping over themselves to get here and take these jobs and they have the experience so my kiddo and many just like him can’t even get their foot in the door. He’s tried temp agencies, he’s offered to work for free as an intern still nothing. So yeah, the economy is much worse than 4 years ago. I knew this was coming. I sat in my car on that cold November evening in 2008 crying because my son was just starting college and I knew what he was facing. Paul Ryan’s speech was directed towards my son and his generation except that my son didn’t vote for Obama so no fading poster on his wall. The only silver lining is he and my husband and I paid as he went so no student loans hanging over his head. We have GOT to get rid of Obama so my son and millions like him can start their lives.

neyney on September 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

My sympathies. Mine are 22 and 23 and graduated in June 2011 and Dec 2011. Also no loans. The June graduate worked in fast food for almost a year til he saved up enough money to volunteer in Japan (his degree is in Japanese) to buff his resume. He only had one interview in his major. The other one has had no interviews in his major and is supposed to start a low level retail position next week. One of the sad things is they can expect to have their long-term earnings remain 10 years behind what they would have been had they managed to finish before the recession. Also, given that, their tax contributions will likely be lower than prior generations for the rest of their earning years, which will further disrupt the federal budget.

Of their cousins, only one, a nurse who graduated before the recession hit, is working in her field and making a decent salary. The lost generation. Mine also did not vote for Obama, but are getting punished all the same. I have no hope that their future will be better than mine. I just hope that if Romney manages to defeat Obama’s media he’ll turn it around enough that they can manage to make the middle class.

talkingpoints on September 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM

It has taken me 4 years to get back to exactly where I was 4 years ago.

ZERO progress.

Thanks Barack Emptychair Obama.

profitsbeard on September 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Only 31% believe we’re better off than four years ago

Remarkably, the exact same number of people were added to the welfare and gov’t assistance rolls this past four years.

Pablo Snooze on September 4, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2