Majority Of Americans Now Blame Obama For Economy-pollsters.

[Hart2008]

At this point in the Obama Presidency, just blaming Bush is not going to work anymore.

For the first time, more than 50 percent of Americans blame President Barack Obama for the nation’s economic woes, a Gallup poll released Thursday finds.

An unemployment crisis, falling home values and incomes, the debt ceiling debate and rising poverty may be making Americans less confident in the president’s ability to keep the economy on sound footing. In an effort to boost employment and spur growth, Obama unveiled a plan earlier this month that includes a combination of spending and tax cuts, known as the American Jobs Act.
...

But a majority of Americans don’t think Obama’s plan will lower the unemployment rate, a Bloomberg poll found. And if it doesn’t, Obama may end up counting himself in the ranks of the unemployed after election day. No president since World War II has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 6 percent except for Ronald Reagan in 1984, according to Bloomberg.

Obama inherited an already high unemployment rate of 7.6 percent when he entered office in January 2009, which may be why the Gallup poll found that more Americans blame George W. Bush for the nation’s economic turmoil than the current president. Almost 70 percent of Americans blame Bush “a great deal” or “a moderate amount” for the state of the economy, according to Gallup.

Americans held similar views in June 2009, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll. At the time, 75 percent of Americans said the country’s economic condition had worsened since he became president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/obama-economy-blame-survey_n_975871.html

[FrenchieCat]

1. Your link is from 9/22/11

So....:wtf:

Most Americans blame Bush and GOP, rather than Obama and Dems, for our economic problems
September 30, 2011 at 12:18 pm
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2011/09/30/most-americans-blame-bush-and-gop-rather-than-obama-and-dems-for-our-economic-problems/


90% think economy is bad, most blame Bush
Published: Monday, Oct. 3, 2011
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184605/90-think-economy-is-bad-most-blame-Bush.html

[Hart2008]

2. So then why is it on the front page of HuffPo now?

Must be an error in the date:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

After four years in office, it gets harder to blame the former president.

So we are back to Obama wanting to run like Reagan again.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I don't read Huffpo......as it is corporate asswipes....and I simply use toilet tissue

so I don't know why you'd be so desperate and have enough time on your hands
to search out a negative article about Obama there and post it here.

Perhaps you know the answer to that question better than anyone. :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

15. He hasn't been in office 4 years.

[JTFrog]

16. Ask the republican that owns it.

Oh wait, she sold it to some other right wing group, didn't she?

[FrenchieCat]

3. June 28th of this year.....

61% Of Voters Blame Republicans Not Obama For The Recession
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-republicans-recession

[FrenchieCat]

5. Perhaps your answer as to why Republicans are more trusted with the economy

has more to do with corporate media coverage than actual facts.

October 17, 2011
Pew Poll: Media not in love with President Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-gets-worst-coverage-perry-gets-best-according-to-pew-survey/2011/10/17/gIQA0h8drL_blog.html

The center surveyed stories in 1,500 news outlets and found that stories in them about President Obama were consistently negative, by a four-to-one margin. Only nine percent of the news coverage in those outlets over the last five months was positive; 34 percent was negative.

The tone of Obama’s coverage on blogs, while still overwhelmingly negative, was slightly better for the president, with 14 percent rated as positive and 36 percent rated negative.
<>
since shortly after President Obama took office, coverage of the president has largely focused on the economic crisis. While the president has been able to affect the amount of coverage he gets by scheduling speeches and events, the survey revealed that he has not been able to shift the tone of that coverage.

According to the survey, Republican presidential contenders have found a more mixed media reception.

[Jakes Progress]

14. You consistently miss the point.

Sure bush and republicans are to blame for this mess, almost completely. And republicans (and reagan democrats) are responsible for the stagnation and stubborn refusal to do good for Americans and the economy.

So? When there were no WMDs, the nation still cheered a pointless war. You can't just ignore media coverage. It is what drives elections. That is what the money is for.

The point is that if people don't think Obama is going to get the changes, they blame him. Tough, but that is the way it is. That is the job he asked for. We can't just stamp our tiny feet and demand that people get smarter or else we will hold our breath and call them names. Obama has to actually get things done. It helps when he actually stands up to republicans and demonstrates how bad they are. Coddling them and calling our liberals as the enemy doesn't help him. Not with the liberals and not with the general population. It paints him as wishy-washy. Right now people want a strong president. You can post DU threads about how strong he is and how cool he is and how fucking fantastic he is, but until he takes control of something and starts convincing people that he can get things done (along with convincing people that republicans are the devil) he will continue to slide.

Those are tough facts. But they are the facts.

[Hart2008]

31. Thank you for making the point. Noone will confuse Obama with FDR. NT

[golfguru]

130. Who knows what the voters are really thinking

Polls are not reliable. However you are making a valid point. And you will never convince many who wear rose colored glasses.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. if only Gary Hart would run!! He could save us!

[FrenchieCat]

7. As long as we take turns sitting on his lap first.....

than, perhaps.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. Gary Hart is a brilliant man and would make just as good of President

as any number of other centrist Democrats. But even if he was an absolute genius and to the left of Bernie Sanders - he is not going to run and would not be able to mount a credible campaign even if he did - or anyone else for that matter. You or I have as much a chance of becoming the Democratic Party nominee as Gary Hart.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Hart could've been a contender...

and spared us all of four years of Bush, Sr. But he fucked himself when he couldn't exercise a bit of self-control ... and challenged the press to find fault.

[Hart2008]

17. False Narrative. You believe that Muskie ordered prostitutes with his campaign letterhead too? NT

[jefferson_dem]

18. I beleve documented history regarding the political tragedy that was Gary Hart.

Hey, I was solid on the Hart bandwagon in 1984. Ahhh...what could've been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EX9k7OC0w4

[Hart2008]

27. Mafia don Santo Trafficante on Hart, "We need to get rid of the son of a bitch"

Roger Morris, who was a NSC adviser to LBJ and later resigned from that job when Nixon invaded Cambodia, was well connected with the intelligence community, He wrote about how Gary Hart's 1988 campaign was sabotaged by those threatened by the reforms Hart had wanted to make in national security:

“Gary Hart went on to the Senate and a seemingly inexorable presidential campaign himself, only to be destroyed in a sex scandal that private investigators and others believed was facilitated by both right-wing Republicans and a CIA nervous about Hart's potential reforms in national security”.

Roger Morris, Partners in Power: The Clintons And Their America, Pg 263

Morris further notes that Hart had served on the Church Committee which had investigated the connection between the CIA and the mafia, that Hart had twice stated his intention of reopening the investigations of the JFK and RFK. Hart also opposed the Reagan-Bush Central America policies which led to Iran-Contra and himself narrowly missed a CIA bombing of a Central American airport to which he and Senator Cohen were flying. Trafficante, caught on an FBI wire tap, is most interesting:

“According to someone familiar with a written record of the remark Trafficante had said of Gary Hart, “We need to get rid of the son of a bitch"...
Some of those involved in Hart's Miami-Bimini weekend turned out to have links to organized crime and cocaine trafficking and, in spiraling circles beyond, to crime bosses of Jewish and Italian syndicates, who in turn possessed ties to the U.S. intelligence community dating back to the Bay of Pigs and earlier.

Discrepancies were plain in the Miami Herald's role in the affair as well. In the supposedly spontaneous call of the paper's public-spirited tipster there had been highly implausible detail about Hart's movement and phone records over the preceding period, intimate knowledge that should have prompted journalistic suspicion but that the paper apparently never questioned. In fact, as a subsequent independent investigation would show, Hart had been under surveillance by unknown parties for days and perhaps weeks before the weekend of March 27-29.

There were also reports of sensational video tapes of the Monkey Business, part of a professional surveillance of the vessel. Despite unexplained money, incriminating phone calls, and even evidence of a contract murder, most of the media had simply repeated the first trumped charges and reprinted the supplied photos, joined the clamor that forced the candidate from the race, then moved on to the next story.”
Ibid at page 434

Gary Hart was followed in December 1986 after he gave the Democratic response to Reagan's weekly radio address. He had not challenged anyone to do that. The Miami Herald never followed Gary Hart anywhere, and its editor did retract that they had done so in response to a "challenge". That story was pure propaganda. History is proving that Bush cut a deal with Murdoch to take Hart out with support from rogue CIA agents. Hart's phone was likely tapped.

Oh, and I enjoyed seeing those old campaign videos. If you look, you can see at the end that they were the work of Hart's media adviser Ray Strother. Strother was scheduled to be on the Monkey Business on that trip, but was called away at the last minute. As we recall, it was a fund raiser for the mayor of Dallas, Annette Strauss, the wife of Robert Strauss. Robert Strauss was the former DNC chairman who was then appointed U.S. ambassador to the former U.S.S.R. by Poppy Bush in 1991.

[Major Hogwash]

43. Don Hogwash: Hart sleeps with the fishes.

Monkey Business.

[Hart2008]

46. If he were to have won, how long would he have lived? NT

[golfguru]

131. Was that gal (Rice?) sitting on his lap really that bad?

If it was Bill Clinton (my hero) would have never got elected to 2nd term.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. The guy at the top invariably gets the blame (and Bush has been out for over 2 years), unfortunately

However, it still remains to be seen exactly how badly the public wants to give the Republicans a chance to "fix" the economy starting in 2013. Do people trust Romney to be able to fix it? Perry? Bachmann? Cain? Gingrich? A fully Republican Congress? :shrug: THAT will ultimately be the big question come next November IMHO. I think that, ultimately, President Obama will fare better upon serious comparison between himself and the current crop of GOP candidates.

[Hart2008]

48. That only works in two way race. Third party/Independent candidates could change that math.

What you are saying is that many people will not be voting "for" Obama, but voting against the Repuke. It is a dangerous way to approach an election, since it leaves no margin for error.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

49. There are no declared Third party/Independent candidates declared (as of yet)

I think that by this time next year, people will have a better understanding of what President Obama has accomplished and decide he's good enough to keep for another 4 years. He has lots of accomplishments to run on and when he's finally campaigning he will have an opportunity to put them out there for everybody to see.

[Hart2008]

50. If unemployment is still over 9%, it may not matter. NT

[Proud Liberal Dem]

119. No offense but it seems like you are determined to focus on all of the negatives

I acknowledge that there are certainly some handicaps going into next year's elections but all we seem to hear from you are negatives? Why? :shrug: I hesitate to believe that you want the Republicans to win next year and Obama to lose but can't you at least acknowledge that the situation is not hopeless (particularly with the bunch of wierdos running in the GOP primary right now)?

[Hart2008]

127. Everyone thought old Ronald Reagan was too old and too conservative too beat Carter in 1980.

And look what happened.

I very much don't want to lose this election.

No, situation isn't hopeless. Yes, the present field on the other side is not impressive. The fix may be in for Jeb to run in 2016, but we could see a repeat of 1980. The Repukes could nominate an idiot like Romney for president and Jeb for VP, and Jeb would actually be running things behind the scenes.

The problem that I have is that there are many others here who don't understand that Dem activists do not decide elections, and however many talking points they recite it doesn't change the fact that Obama has lost his popularity among the swing voters who will decide this election. The economy and unemployment are serious weaknesses for Obama's reelection. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't remember 1980. The negatives need to be considered intelligently and discussed civilly.

Thank you for an intelligent response.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

132. He still has time to win back the swing voters

Obama is NOT Carter no matter how much the right wants to try to make them out to be the same/similar. There is just no logical comparison IMHO to Carter and Obama other than the fact that they are both Democrats. Also, who is the Republican "Reagan" going to be next year? Romney? Perry? :shrug: A bad situation now doesn't mean that our future defeat is inevitable. It's precisely because we know that things are going to be rough that we need to make sure we work hard to make sure that the worst possible scenario doesn't come to pass.

[jefferson_dem]

10. These Gallup #s are a month old. Politico first ran the story and the rest of the pack follows.

Lame.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WI_DEM]

13. As usual you cherry pick your polls...

Here is the CBS poll from earlier this month (which is fresher than the poll you cite):

Still, most don't blame the administration for the state of the economy. Asked who was most to blame, Americans cited the Bush administration (22 percent), followed by Wall Street (16 percent), Congress (15 percent) and then the Obama administration (12 percent.) One in 10 said "all of the above."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x789312

[ProSense]

19. That's not what

the whacky poll shows.




Gallup is engaging in creative polling. From the poll

PRINCETON, NJ -- A slight majority of Americans for the first time blame President Obama either a great deal (24%) or a moderate amount (29%) for the nation's economic problems. However, Americans continue to blame former President George W. Bush more. Nearly 7 in 10 blame Bush a great deal (36%) or a moderate amount (33%).

<...>

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Thanks for the clarification PS

It never ceases to amaze me the ways some organizations, particularly certain polling organizations distort/skew the polling data and associated headlines. Maybe it is technically accurate to say that over 50% of people (according to this poll) blames Obama a great/moderate amount for the economy but 69% still believe that Bush is much more responsible, so it's not like people are suddenly blaming Obama more than Bush for the bad economy. :puke:

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

124. How is a information on a different subject a clarification?

You admit in your own post that over 50% of Americans now blame Obama for this mess. That is exactly what the OP said. Nowhere did it say that bush was off the hook. So how is PS's polling data relevant. We won't be running against bush. We will be running against the perceptions that exist now - not 8 years ago.

Those who want Obama reelected have to come to the reality that Obama is not viewed well in this area. Until he does something to convince the public that he can actually get things done to improve the situation, all his supporters can do is whine that people aren't smart, that pollsters are meanies, and stamp their feet in pointless tantrums. The facts are harsh. Whether you want to defend Obama as a helpless pawn of the conservatives or lambast him as a timid and ineffective leader, the facts are that he is the one who will have to change the mindset. Resting on the laurels of "At least people like him better than bush" is pointless and non-productive.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Thanks Pro.

:hi:

[Jakes Progress]

52. For what?

The OP discusses oranges, and Pro tells you about apples.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. I love fruit salad.

:hi:

[Hart2008]

66. What else is new? NT

[uponit7771]

25. +1000

[Jakes Progress]

54. Read the OP. Read the post you celebrated.

What does one have to do with the other as far as the coming election?

This stuff isn't hard. It's just difficult to see with your rosy glasses on.

[AtomicKitten]

26. 69% Bush to 53% Obama

Thanks for posting this.

[Jakes Progress]

56. Did you read the OP?

What has that figure got to do with the OP? You are fighting old wars. It will not help you get ready for the next one.

[CakeGrrl]

30. The TRUTH from ProSense as usual.

Unrec to the OP for distorting the facts, but given other posts, it's not at all surprising.

[Jakes Progress]

57. A truth from PS. But not germane to the OP.

Fail to the post for misdirection. But it's not surprising.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Unrec for month old crap posing as "news". That's not the only thing "posing".

:hi:

[Hart2008]

29. Why don't you say what you mean by that? NT

[uponit7771]

23. -1 Poll says majority STILL blame Bush than Obama, Obama's numbers just increasing over time as it.

...should

[BklnDem75]

24. AOL has truly taken over

Old poll? Check
Crap polling? Check
Adding two different results and running a story on it? :boring:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

35. The point is that things have gotten worse under Obama, not better.

It is not in dispute from these polls that most people think that Bush started the problems.

The question is President Obama able to fix them?

More people are expressing an opinion that Obama's policies have made the situation worse instead of better. That is not good for election day 2012 when the question will be asked of voters, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

The issue is not whether Dem loyalists will blame it all on Bush. The issue is how those marginal Dems, independents and moderate Repukes will answer that question. Those are the people who decide elections. I question the reason of those who question that point.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Prove it. Show me comparative economic data from January 2009 versus now.

[Hart2008]

39. FACT: Unemployment has risen under Obama!

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

[ClarkUSA]

41. When Bush left office, 700K jobs/mo. were being lost. Now there's a net plus.

Numbers don't lie, do they?

In the last year of the Bush administration, the monthly job loss numbers built steadily to a peak which then began to reverse itself during Obama's first year.

It's a perfect mirror image...

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-02-05/wall_street/30088805_1#ixzz1bMOs8gbq

[Hart2008]

47. How well did this graph work in the 2010 midterm elections?

Since this graph came from Pelosi's office, how well did it work keeping the House?

Why should we assume that it will work better keeping the White House and Senate?

Since you keep posting the same graph, see the rest of my answer #45 below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x801682#802503

[ClarkUSA]

53. Nice try. Midterm elections have nearly always favored the party not in the WH.

2010 was no different.

[Hart2008]

60. But if more Americans still blame Bush for the bad economy, why didn't it favor Obama? FDR gained...

In similar circumstances FDR GAINED seats in the midterm elections.

Dems gained nine seats in the Senate and nine seats in the House-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934

Maybe the difference is about leadership...
...or maybe it was because FDR wasn't dependent on raising money from the bankers which made the difference?

:think:

[Hart2008]

67. Somehow, I don't think we are going to get an answer to this question... NT

[ClarkUSA]

80. Because polling at the time showed independents felt Pres. Obama & Dems overreached on HCR.

[Hart2008]

81. Weak. NT

[ClarkUSA]

82. lol! Yes, your reply is "Weak." My facts are strong.

[Hart2008]

85. I'll let others here be the judge of that. NT

[ClarkUSA]

103. Not necessary. It's clear to me you got nuthin'.

[Hart2008]

105. I'll let others judge your opinions. NT

[Tarheel_Dem]

120. Judging by the recs, or lack thereof, I think "others did judge".

:rofl:

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

128. The argument of those who remember how Carter lost to Reagan. NT

[BklnDem75]

129. So you run with a talking point born from the right for what?

To prevent history from repeating? Seems you're pushing for it to happen again.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

135. No one can fix the world economy it is a global thing

Obama is trying to stop us going going under. He can't just wave a magic wand. If a GOP person wins in 2012 then we will be in an never ending war which will put people's mind off the economy. Things will get so bad that they will blame it on the war. The GOP has no clue and will drive us to our graves.

[Avalux]

33. Hey - read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801837&mesg_id=801837

[ClarkUSA]

34. Unrec for false OP headline. This month-old poll says a 69% majority STILL blame Bush.

Proof: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801682&mesg_id=801780

"Now"?? That's another false statement. Are you getting desperate? This poll is one month old.

So much for matters of principle.

[Hart2008]

36. and over 50% now blame Obama as well now. So over 50% now blame Bush AND Obama.

The poll does not require that people exclusively assign blame to one President or the other.

True, more blame Bush, but a majority now blame Obama as well.

The headline is not false.

[ClarkUSA]

37. lol! Blah, blah. Your OP is misleading. Why are you quoting one outlier poll from last month?

After all that digging, is all the dirt you could find this one old outlier poll bring touted by right leaning AOL-owned HuffPo?

[Hart2008]

40. Because it was on the front page of HuffPo last night.

It is not a RW talking point that Obama's term as president correlated with a spike in unemployment.

That is a fact.

It is also a fact that more Americans now believe that Obama is responsible for the poor state of the economy. Not as many as still blame Bush, but this far into his term, people expected to see an improvement which they haven't seen. The polling reflects that.

[ClarkUSA]

42. So what? HuffPo is RW AOL-owned. Your false narrative is not based on fact. Here's proof -->

Numbers don't lie, do they?

In the last year of the Bush administration, the monthly job loss numbers built steadily to a peak which then began to reverse itself during Obama's first year.

It's a perfect mirror image...

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-02-05/wall_street/30088805_1#ixzz1bMOs8gbq

ANOTHER FACT: September 2011 marks 19th consecutive month of private sector jobs growth (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/7/2011)
Get your graphs and facts here: http://www.democraticleader.gov/blog/?p=4478

[Hart2008]

45. Uh, sorry, but how was job loss defined here? Is it just jobs that were lost to China?

In what other "free trade" deals where these jobs lost?

We can expect more such lost jobs with the new free trade deals which just passed.

Without getting into the other details of how this graph was made, how well did it work in the 2010 midterm elections, and why should we expect a different result in 2012?

Really, the public wants job creation, and not just being a little better than Bush, or rather not quite as bad.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Splitting hairs? Red herring rhetoric is no match for facts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

[Hart2008]

61. So your point is that the economy could be worse? The fact is unemployment is over 9% now.

Arguing that we aren't losing jobs as fast due to bad "free trade" deals doesn't address the fact that the policy of exporting jobs while importing workers was retained, even if it just slowed down for a while.

That is not a winning argument for election day.

[ClarkUSA]

71. That's a false statement. I've ignored your strawman argument.

[Hart2008]

74. You deny that unemployment is now over 9% vs. 7.5% when Obama took office?

"In September, employers added only 103,000 jobs last month, and the unemployment rate remained 9.1 percent for a third straight month."
http://news.yahoo.com/us-unemployment-claims-trend-lower-still-high-133131661.html

You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

76. So you expected Pres. Obama to magically reverse BushCo's economic devastation in 2.75 years....

... with a Teabagger House who've rejected all of his economic initiatives since January?

Gotcha.

[Hart2008]

83. So now you believe that unemployment really is over 9% and want to change the subject?

The time to push his economic initiatives was in the first 100 days like FDR.

OOOPS!

That was another missed opportunity there from Obama.

He sure had a lot of them, didn't he?

He failed to understand the problem we faced as a nation.

[ClarkUSA]

86. No, I want to know what you expected unemployment to be 3 years after Lehman Brothers crashed...

... and eight years after BushCo systematically began emptying the Treasury and allowing Wall Street to make its own rules after Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.

[Hart2008]

88. Less than what it was when a Dem President took the oath of office. NT

[ClarkUSA]

89. How was he supposed to do that when BushCo was losing 700K jobs/mo in January 2009?

You're ignoring the facts again. In the last year of the Bush administration, the monthly job loss numbers built steadily to a peak which then began to reverse itself during Obama's first year. Now there's been 19 consecutive months of private sector job gains.



Your expectation is not grounded in any understanding of macroeconomy. That much is clear.

[Hart2008]

91. Not continuing Bush neoliberal economic policies and effecting real change as advertised.

Wow!

There is that graph again?

How well did it work in the midterm elections?

[ClarkUSA]

92. Prove your accusations. Unlike me, you have offered nothing in the way of facts yet.

[Hart2008]

95. Obama approved more neoliberal trade deals which have damaged our standard of living.

'Nuff said.

[ClarkUSA]

96. I said prove your claims, not repeat them. You clearly have nothing to back up your words.

[Hart2008]

99. So now you are denying that Obama just approved more of Bush's bad trade deals...

Have a hair of the dog that bit you!

[ClarkUSA]

101. Trade Deals FACT: The WH made "changes demanded by industry groups and unions" (The New York Times)

President Obama renegotiated the Bush trade deals. He's the first president to uphold U.S. trade law. --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x795798

Your falsehood has been debunked.

[Hart2008]

107. The undeniable fact is that the American standard of living is in decline from "free trade". NT

[ClarkUSA]

108. The American standard of living was fine under Clinton. How do you explain that?

[Hart2008]

110. No, Clinton only looks good between the Bush bookends.

our standard of living has been in decline since neoliberalism and free trade started in the 70's.

[ClarkUSA]

112. You made another claim without a shred of fact. Predictable.

"our standard of living has been in decline since neoliberalism and free trade started in the 70's"

:rofl:

[Hart2008]

115. Those of us who have lived through it remember.

Things like people only needing one job to have a nice lifestyle because it was full time and had health insurance.

[Jakes Progress]

62. OMG. You mean you think Robert Kennedy Jr is a right winger?

Golly. All that right wing crap they write about how conservative Obama is and how he attacks liberals and stuff. Uh. Hmm. Do you know the difference between right wing and left wing?

[Hart2008]

63. Anyone who doesn't think the sun shines out Obama's &^% is a Right Winger! NT

[ClarkUSA]

72. Most people who constantly make up false narratives about Pres. Obama are right wingers.

[Hart2008]

75. Most people who invent their own facts are delusional. NT

[ClarkUSA]

77. Yes, I agree, which is why I debunked your false narrative with facts, which you ignored.

FACTS which you have ignored via the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801682&mesg_id=802227

[Hart2008]

84. Nothing false about the narrative that Dems lost the House & seats in the Senate with that graph.NT

[ClarkUSA]

87. What graph? 2010 was about independents feeling Pres. Obama & Dems overreached on HCR.

[Hart2008]

93. Pelosi's "bikin5 chart" which you keep posting and didn't work in the midterms. NT

It doesn't change the fact that unemployment went up under Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

94. You are falsely laying all the blame on President Obama. See Reply #93.

Follow the instructions now!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=801682&mesg_id=802713

[Hart2008]

97. Now you are going in circles. NT

[ClarkUSA]

98. lol! Why don't you answer Frenchie Cat in Reply #93? Hmm?

[Hart2008]

100. Harry Truman had that sign on his desk, "The Buck stops here".

He is responsible for what happens on his watch.

Voters expect things to get better, and not worse.

[ClarkUSA]

102. Simplistic slogans is not an answer to Frenchie Cat's Reply #93. Try replying to her next time.

Are you afraid to?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

109. Your simplistic slogans are meaningless. And there you go again with the personal attacks.

[Hart2008]

114. "There you go again" quoting Reagan at the debates. NT

[ClarkUSA]

122. And Eric Cantor agrees with you that the economy is all Pres. Obama's fault.

[Jakes Progress]

126. OMG. Did you just label Obama a right winger?

I mean if agreeing with cantor makes one a right winger, you have to know that Obama just backed cantor and the whole republican congress in passing three new bush trade deals.

I never thought I would see you calling Obama a right winger.

[ClarkUSA]

70. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

[Jakes Progress]

125. Better than your record.

[Wait Wut]

44. I don't get it.

I unrecced and it was still at zero. :(

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Andrew_Writer]

58. damn

what is he supposed to do??>

[Hart2008]

64. Fire Geithner. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Reverse the free trade deals.

Is it too late for him to return all of the campaign contributions from Wall Street?

:think:

[ClarkUSA]

78. Why should he fire Geithner or reverse trade deals that uphold U.S. trade law for the first time?

Elizabeth Warren doesn't think Geithner should be fired not has she ever said he's corrupt. What do you know that she doesn't?

The UAW has applauded the renegotiated trade deals and the UFCW just endorsed his re-election today.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, he is withdrawing troops from both countries and ended the war in Iraq.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

68. ROFL...

Sid

[ClarkUSA]

73. Monkey Business, indeed.

[JoePhilly]

117. +1

[FrenchieCat]

90. If asshole Republican governors hadn't fired the 500,000+ Public Employees,

perhaps the unemployment rate would be lower.

Maybe instead of working so hard trying to defeat this President,
blinding citing the unemployment rate without context ,
you should be posting at sites that buy your shit and letting them
know what I just said.

[Hart2008]

104. Perhaps if Obama had embraced Keynesian economics, that wouldn't matter.

Perhaps if we were building bridges here instead of in Iraq things would be better.

Perhaps if we hadn't been spending so much money on military interventions during Obama's term as President, we would have more money for domestic spending.

Perhaps if Obama had created a new CCC and WPA like Robert Reich keeps suggesting, unemployment would be lower. (No maybe.)

Had Obama nationalized the banks, mortgage defaults would be lower and housing prices would have stabilized.

I could go on...

[ClarkUSA]

111. None of what you say makes sense. How long did FDR have to turn the first Great Depression around?

[Hart2008]

113. FDR was able to show improvement on election day four years later. Obama may not.NT

[ClarkUSA]

123. Obama saved this nation from a second Great Depression & unlike FDR, he's stuck w/a Teabagger House

It's been 2.75 years since he took office. In that time, he's reversed the job loss and there's been 19 months of consecutive private sector job gain. His stimulus plan was a success and saved millions of jobs. His payroll tax holiday acted as another stimulus as did his extending UI. If you can't acknowledge his achievement, then your opinion is wish-based, not fact-based.

[Arkana]

134. He doesn't get to wave his hands and create things like the CCC and WPA.

They'd be overturned by the Roberts Court before he got done signing the executive orders.

Does it suck? Yes. Is it reality? Also yes.

And nationalizing the banks is a socialist pipe dream that everyone thinks would magically fix all our economic problems.

[dionysus]

118. ga-ry! ga-ry!

:rofl:

[Beacool]

121. Well, that's to be expected.

Who is in charge? Whether it's fair or not, the buck stops at the Oval office.

:shrug:

[Arkana]

133. Hey.

Hey Sparky.

Gary Hart's never gonna be President.

There won't be a serious challenger.

Obama will be the nominee, and he's going to win another term. I look forward to your head exploding Scanners-style when it happens.