Americans blame Obama not Bush for the economy.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Hello, Aug 21, 2010.

  1. Hello


    Note the fact that this poll was conducted july 30-31, not July 9 like Hermits.

    48% Blame Obama for Bad Economy, 47% Blame Bush
    Monday, August 02, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
    For the first time since President Obama took office, voters see his policies as equally to blame with those of President George W. Bush for the country’s current economic problems.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters now think Obama’s policies are to blame for the continuing bad economy, up three points from last month. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the recession that began under Bush is at fault.

    With voters across the country expressing stronger belief that the economy is getting worse rather than better, these new findings spell potential bad news for Democratic candidates this fall. The president is already planning to limit his campaign appearances with candidates because of potential voter backlash.

    In June and last October, 45% blamed Obama’s policies for the country’s ongoing economic woes, the previous high finding on this question. The number who blame Bush is down from 62% in May 2009 when Rasmussen Reports first began tracking the question regularly. Only 27% faulted Obama at that time.

    As is often the case, Mainstream voters and the Political Class have wholly different viewpoints on this question. While 61% of Mainstream voters now blame Obama’s policies, 87% of the Political Class say the bad economy is due to the recession that began under Bush.

    Fifty-five percent (55%) of men blame Obama’s policies for the current economic problems, while 52% of women think Bush is the cause.

    Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Obama is now chiefly to blame by a 52% to 44% margin.

    (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

    The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted July 30-31, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

    Sixty-two percent (62%) trust their own judgment more than Obama’s when it comes to the economic issues facing the nation. Twenty-seven percent (27%) trust the president’s judgment more. These findings have changed very little for months.

    Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly trust themselves more than the president when it comes to the economy. A plurality (48%) of Democrats place more faith in Obama.

    Seventy-six percent (76%) of Mainstream voters trust their own economic judgment more than the president’s. Sixty-two percent (62%) of the Political Class trust the president more.

    Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters currently rate the president’s handling of economic issues as good or excellent. Forty-seven percent (47%) view his handling of these issues as poor. These findings, too, have held relatively steady since last November.

    Forty-four percent (44%) of voters still expect their taxes to increase under Obama. Sixty-four percent (64%) believe government spending will go up under the Obama administration.

    The economy remains the most important issue to voters among 10 top issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.
  2. And from the Washington Post, ya know, the same Washington Post who admitted being biased towards Obama:

    The real reason Dems are tying GOP to Bush

    As you know, Democrats have lately been banging away harder than ever at the message that a vote for Republicans this fall is a vote for none other than George W. Bush. In recent days Dems have shouted this argument in every venue available.

    There's a reason for this sudden aggressiveness, and it's one that Dems won't own up to publicly: The public may not yet be persuaded that a vote for Republicans is a vote to return to Bush's policies.

    Dems have been circulating a polling memo, by the centrist group Third Way, arguing that Bush's economic policies remain deeply unpopular and that the public thinks those policies are to blame for the current mess. And, to be sure, multiple other polls show this. But the question is this: Does the public believe that electing Republicans now would represent a return to Bush policies?

    There's a finding buried in that same memo that hasn't gotten attention, but it's key. It suggests that the public doesn't yet buy this:

    This has some Dems worrying that the central Dem message has yet to sink in with voters. Dems fear the current crop of Congressional Republicans may have achieved separation from Bush in the public mind, at least for now.

    According to one very plugged in Dem strategist, Democrats are privately asking themselves whether they are partly to blame for that separation.

    After the 2008 elections, which were all about Bush, Dems turned to governing and largely dialed down the argument that the current crop of Republicans is indistinguishable in policy terms from Bush. They worry that this lull has allowed Republicans to rebrand themselves as different from Bush, even if that brand remains unpopular.

    And that's why Dems are turning up the volume on the point that today's Republican policies -- the support for continuing Bush's tax cuts, the embrace of deregulation, Paul Ryan's push to do away with Social Security -- show that voting GOP is voting for a return to Bush.

    "Why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that lost jobs for eight years?" DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen asked on Meet the Press recently. "What are you going to get that's different?"

    The rub is that the public may not accept this yet. But Dems have a great deal at stake in making sure voters believe it.
  3. Hello


    TARP was a huge success, Obama should be thanking Bush, the majority of TARP has been repaid already, and they it might even turn a profit, at worst it will have cost 100 billion, plus it saved or created ten times the amount of jobs the stimulus did. Not to mention these jobs were all saved and created in the private sector not in the government.

    It was TARP that saved the economy from systemic collapse, not the stimulus, the stimulus was nothing more then a wasteful slush fund for liberals.

    I dont like the thought of bailing out shitty companies but TARP was miles ahead of the stimulus in terms of its success.

  4. Larson

    Larson Guest

    Neither have been a success, but have just delayed the inevitable. Bush=idiot. Obama=inept.
  5. Hello


    Bullshit, TARP will end up costing about 100 billion if it doesnt break even and it staved off total systemic collapse. And yes I agree Bush was an idiot, but there is no denying TARP was a success.

  6. Larson

    Larson Guest

    Success for what? All that was done was to kick the can down the road. Bernanke rescuing of money market funds and restoring confidence in banking system by raising FDIC limits to calm fears of bank runs. TARP was nazi Paulson's creation.
  7. Hello


    Kicked the can down the road? are you an idiot? The total bill for TARP will be 100 billion dollars or less, the amount we make in tax revenues this year alone from these companies will be over 100 billion.

    What was your proposal? Just let the entire thing collapse? We would have had 30% or higher unemployment, and we probably would lose anywhere from 100-200 billion in tax revenues from the companies and employees of the companies we bailed out. Not to mention all of the other companies which would have gone down as a result as well.

  8. Larson

    Larson Guest

    My point is, TARP had little to do with saving the system from collapse. Why didn't they just bailout Lehman instead? Bernanke's action was what restored confidence. TARP was part of the scam. Are yoiu are idiot? Don't you remember Paulson going back on his word on the original intent. They are all a bunch of liars.
    #10     Aug 21, 2010