Obama's approval rating higher than Reagan or Clinton at same point

[bigrebnc1775]

Completely ridiculous.

The economy collapsed disastrously under Republican leadership twice, the Great Depression and in 2008. You want to blame FDR and Obama, okay.

I'm sure you'll point to Reagan, which is another absurd point as Reagan hadn't figured anything out as far as fixing the economy at this point in his Presidency and his policies implemented thereafter are a primary reason, we're in the mess we're in now.

What's ridiculous is that you forgot congress controls spendiing You forgot that the economy faultered when Freddy and Fanny needed to be bailed out. You forgot the democrats controlled Congress in 2007
and the republicans had a small majority when bush became president.

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

Bush Jr. spent $3 trillion on a War that took away another country's sovereignty for no reason whatsoever because we felt like it. A precedent we can't take away and the rest of the world now knows we're capable of. Not to mention the loss of life.

He took office with a surplus and a great economy and left with a massive deficit and a collapsed economy.

Handling of Hurricane Katrina, got Saddam, but never got Osama.

Frankly, a D- is nice. His approval rating was 22% when he left office. The lowest of any President in history. It steadily and consistently went down for 7 years. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, that's right, it's the left-wing media bias, ok...

 

[Revere]

Bush Jr. spent $3 trillion on a War that took away another country's sovereignty because we felt like it. A precedent we can't take away and the rest of the world now knows we're capable of.

He took office with a surplus and a great economy and left with a massive deficit and a collapsed economy.

Hurricane Katrina, got Saddam, but never got Osama.

Frankly, a D- is nice. His approval rating was 222% when he left office. The lowest of any President in history. It steadily and consistently went down for 7 years. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, that's right, it's the left-wing media bias, ok...

What does that have to do with permanent 10% unemployment the current regime has no interest in improving?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush Jr. spent $3 trillion on a War that took away another country's sovereignty for no reason whatsoever because we felt like it. A precedent we can't take away and the rest of the world now knows we're capable of. Not to mention the loss of life.

He took office with a surplus and a great economy and left with a massive deficit and a collapsed economy.

Handling of Hurricane Katrina, got Saddam, but never got Osama.

Frankly, a D- is nice. His approval rating was 22% when he left office. The lowest of any President in history. It steadily and consistently went down for 7 years. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, that's right, it's the left-wing media bias, ok...

Frankly, a D- is nice. His approval rating was 22% when he left office. The lowest of any President in history. It steadily and consistently went down for 7 years. Why do you suppose that is? Oh, that's right, it's the left-wing media bias, ok

Yell humm we know how that approval thingy works with you

Handling of Hurricane Katrina, got Saddam, but never got Osama

Do you really want to go in that direction mr. I sit on my hands and do nothing with the gulf for 45 days obama?
Osama? obama hasn't gotten him yet either.

He took office with a surplus and a great economy and left with a massive deficit and a collapsed economy.

Man I can't believe I missed this
The suyrplus did not exist. clinton did not have a surplus he had the books cuts.

 

[Revere]

Americans should be content with four more years of this?

 

[ElephantMcDonk]

Two things, first off, the unemployment rate does not wholly define how well a President is doing. Many economists will suggest that the government doesn't control it all that much. And the President has a whole lot of other things to base judgment on. I don't think many historians rank Presidents based on what the unemployment rate was while they were President.

2nd, What would you have done with the inherited freefalling economy if you could do it over? Many honest, Republican economists acknowledge there's not much he could have done different to have a different outcome as of today. Reagan's economy was in the crapper at the same time in his first term. Do you have any prescription for lower unemployment for today? Let me guess, if only Obama had pushed Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent a long time ago and lowered corporate taxes, then the small business owners and corporations would have more certainty and that would translate into more jobs. We might go bankrupt in the medium run, but in the short run, the unemployment rate might be at 9.5% instead of 9.7%

 

[Revere]

Two things, first off, the unemployment rate does not wholly define how well a President is doing. Many economists will suggest that the government doesn't control it all that much. And the President has a whole lot of other things to base judgment on. I don't think many historians rank Presidents based on what the unemployment rate was while they were President.

2nd, What would you have done with the inherited freefalling economy if you could do it over? Many honest, Republican economists acknowledge there's not much he could have done different to have a different outcome as of today. Reagan's economy was in the crapper at the same time in his first term. Do you have any prescription for lower unemployment for today? Let me guess, if only Obama had pushed Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent a long time ago and lowered corporate taxes, then the small business owners and corporations would have more certainty and that would translate into more jobs. We might go bankrupt in the medium run, but in the short run, the unemployment rate might be at 9.5% instead of 9.7%

That war's over, babe. 20 million out of work people don't deserve to be miserable four more years.

This is the best Obama can do.

 

[Ozmar]

Two things, first off, the unemployment rate does not wholly define how well a President is doing. Many economists will suggest that the government doesn't control it all that much. And the President has a whole lot of other things to base judgment on. I don't think many historians rank Presidents based on what the unemployment rate was while they were President.

2nd, What would you have done with the inherited freefalling economy if you could do it over? Many honest, Republican economists acknowledge there's not much he could have done different to have a different outcome as of today. Reagan's economy was in the crapper at the same time in his first term. Do you have any prescription for lower unemployment for today? Let me guess, if only Obama had pushed Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent a long time ago and lowered corporate taxes, then the small business owners and corporations would have more certainty and that would translate into more jobs. We might go bankrupt in the medium run, but in the short run, the unemployment rate might be at 9.5% instead of 9.7%

That war's over, babe. 20 million out of work people don't deserve to be miserable four more years.

This is the best Obama can do.

It's like emptying the Hoover dam, and expecting it to refill the next day with you.

 

[Revere]

They can't even tell you when the dam will be filled.

We just have to keep trusting them.

Doesn't sound like a plan to me.

 

[Ozmar]

They can't even tell you when the dam will be filled.

We just have to keep trusting them.

Doesn't sound like a plan to me.

They don't really know. It isn't much better than the rain. Politicians trying to forecast the economy are no better than weathermen.

 

[Revere]

They can't even tell you when the dam will be filled.

We just have to keep trusting them.

Doesn't sound like a plan to me.

They don't really know. It isn't much better than the rain. Politicians trying to forecast the economy are no better than weathermen.

Then it's time to go, because the best they can offer is to expect you to be content to be miserable.

 

[Ozmar]

They can't even tell you when the dam will be filled.

We just have to keep trusting them.

Doesn't sound like a plan to me.

They don't really know. It isn't much better than the rain. Politicians trying to forecast the economy are no better than weathermen.

Then it's time to go, because the best they can offer is to expect you to be content to be miserable.

Go where? The grass is always greener. Australia ain't much better.

 

[Flopper]

In a previous thread I was making the point that I think he wins re-election in 2012 and then a Republican wins in 2016. Various reasons, a main one being I think the GOP field for 2012 is dismal. The up and comers in the party almost certainly won't run this time.

The last two success stories in beating an incumbent were Reagan over Carter and Clinton over HW Bush. CLinton and Reagan were fantastic candidates and aided by third parties, in Clinton's case an actual third party in Perot. In Reagan's, Kennedy challenging Carter. On top of that, both had a bad last year in office. A lot has to go right for a challenger to beat an incumbent for President.

I just don't see Obama being that weak or any of the potential candidates on the Republican side being that strong.

A 9.5% unemployment rate in 2 years will make it difficult for him. Voters hold the President responsible for the economy. Never mind the fact that he didn't cause the recession, nor the fact that the opposition had no viable plan to deal with it. He's president, so he owns the problem.

If there is a steady downward trend in unemployment, Obama should have little problem getting re-elected, but with a Republican House, I think it's unlikely that we will see much out of Congress to improve the economy simply because an improving economy will work against the Republican candidate. It sounds like cutting government spending will take top priority for the Republicans as well as some Democrats. While reduction in government spending will benefit the country in the long run, it's likely to reduce consumption which would be a drag on the economy over the next two years.

You would expect Obama's approval rating to be much lower considering that most of his legislation has not been popular with the public. The only reason his approval rating is as high as it is, is that the American public simply likes him. They liked him as a candidate; they like him as a president and they will like him again as a candidate.

 

[Revere]

They want to be miserable four more years?

 

[Revere]

They don't really know. It isn't much better than the rain. Politicians trying to forecast the economy are no better than weathermen.

Then it's time to go, because the best they can offer is to expect you to be content to be miserable.

Go where? The grass is always greener. Australia ain't much better.

Yes it is. If you don't have plan, it's time to let the other guys govern.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They want to be miserable four more years?

And they want us to be as miserable as they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name three things that make Obama a "centrist."

1. Making tax cuts the single biggest component of the stimulus bill

2. Escalating the war in Afghanistan

3. Positions on gays in the military and gay marriage.

4. Supporting the bank bailout.

5. Half white, half black. lol

 

[Common Sense]

Clinton Surplus: FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

(yup that pesky surplus was all fake)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Clinton Surplus: FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

(yup that pesky surplus was all fake)

The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[The Infidel]

Obama approval at 40%








RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval