As bad as Bush.

Del Boy

Active member
According to NBC News/Wall St Journal, it is reported, Barack Obama would lose the Presidency if the election were held tomorrow. Overall job approval rating 44%. Geo Washington University finds 72% of voters believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

His approval rating is as bad as that of Bush in his second term.
 
Yes but to be fair GWB managed to achieve his rating while the nations economy was not in free fall and at a time when 9/11 had united the nation, Obama just inherited a mess and has managed to maintain it through inactivity and procrastination.

I would also suggest that it would depend greatly on who Obama's opposition was as to whether he would win or lose an election.

That being said he has certainly been a giant non-event.
 
Regardless of how low his approval rating is, Obama will win in 2012 unless the GOP manages to come up with an amazing candidate in the next fourteen months. Which is highly doubtful.
 
There is one caveat that is missing: Bush won reelection with a 43% approval rating in 2004.

Polls this early are simply not be trusted as the GOP has not selected a nominee, and in my view precisely who will be the GOP nominee will determine the 2012 election.

If the GOP is smart, they will nominate someone palatable to moderates like myself such as a Romney or Huntsman. Should they be the nominee, Obama will be in very serious trouble.

If however, the nominee is Perry or Bachmann that will scare off the moderates. The more I see Perry the more he reminds me of Bush. And there is no way I'm going back to that, hell no!

Last night Perry reiterated his desire to kill off Social Security. That might have played well to the base, but anyone planning on retiring soon just because a Democrat. Perry simply cannot win the general election with those types of Ideological "mad cowboy disease" extremist views.

We know that type already, that wont work a second time. People don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean we want Bush back. I hope the GOP loses in a landslide if they nominate Perry.

Furthermore. the left isn't yet involved in the election cycle, they wont be until the GOP primaries are decided. Wait until Obama starts to rally the base...

Real Clear politics (which covers all the polls) Obama winning by a hair against Perry

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_perry_vs_obama-2701.html

I think the GOP establishment knows this, and are going to try and undermine Perry. Already Karl Rove called Perry views "Toxic". That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

UPDATE: I was just listening to Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on the "O'Really? Factor" in while the main topic was Palin they did pump up Romney at several points. They also took a few shots at Perry, so I think my assumption is still correct, the GOP establishment mouthpiece (FOX NEWS) is behind Romney and not Perry.
 
Last edited:
There is one caveat that is missing: Bush won reelection with a 43% approval rating in 2004.

Polls this early are simply not be trusted as the GOP has not selected a nominee, and in my view precisely who will be the GOP nominee will determine the 2012 election.

If the GOP is smart, they will nominate someone palatable to moderates like myself such as a Romney or Huntsman. Should they be the nominee, Obama will be in very serious trouble.

If however, the nominee is Perry or Bachmann that will scare off the moderates. The more I see Perry the more he reminds me of Bush. And there is no way I'm going back to that, hell no!

Last night Perry reiterated his desire to kill off Social Security. That might have played well to the base, but anyone planning on retiring soon just because a Democrat. Perry simply cannot win the general election with those types of Ideological "mad cowboy disease" extremist views.

We know that type already, that wont work a second time. People don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean we want Bush back. I hope the GOP loses in a landslide if they nominate Perry.

Furthermore. the left isn't yet involved in the election cycle, they wont be until the GOP primaries are decided. Wait until Obama starts to rally the base...

Real Clear politics (which covers all the polls) Obama winning by a hair against Perry

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_perry_vs_obama-2701.html

I think the GOP establishment knows this, and are going to try and undermine Perry. Already Karl Rove called Perry views "Toxic". That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

UPDATE: I was just listening to Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on the "O'Really? Factor" in while the main topic was Palin they did pump up Romney at several points. They also took a few shots at Perry, so I think my assumption is still correct, the GOP establishment mouthpiece (FOX NEWS) is behind Romney and not Perry.
The Poll was Would you vote for a Rep. vs Obama, & the answer was yes. A generic, nonspecific Rep. was the popular choice. "Perry reminds me of Bush". That Perry, McCain, ect is "a continuation of Bush" tends to be a common Liberal fantasy, but you might be right, inadvertantly, about Perry. We voted in Bush in expectation of reduced Govt size & spending, Bush turned out to be a Big Govt moderate that was a real dissapointment. Perry is talking like a good Conservative now, but not long ago he was a Dem who back Gore for Prez. Could be another Moderate pretending to be a Conservative. Yeah, I'm sure the Rep. Party Leadership is a bunch of Big Govt Moderates, like Bush, who'd like to see the TEA Party go away & blissfully join the Dems into spending us into oblivion. SS is a poor paying (1% return) Ponzi scheme bound to collapse unless funded by the general fund.
 
Sorry, nobody .. and I mean nobody could be as bad as GW Bush.

While there is much to be said against the job performance of the present President, if you are honest with your views .. you have to recognize the fact that the situation that Obama inherited were as a result of the GW Bush presidency.

In today's market, the economy and jobs are front and center AGAIN. I believe the view that government can generate jobs is wrong .. only the civilian sector can do so. That DOESN'T mean that government can not affect the economic environment. Government policies do impact the private sector's ability to invest money and resources in equipment and jobs.

As to who is going to win the race in 2012, the polls that are cropping up all over the place are just guesses .. and like opinions, everybody has got one.
 
Sorry, nobody .. and I mean nobody could be as bad as GW Bush.

While there is much to be said against the job performance of the present President, if you are honest with your views .. you have to recognize the fact that the situation that Obama inherited were as a result of the GW Bush presidency.

In today's market, the economy and jobs are front and center AGAIN. I believe the view that government can generate jobs is wrong .. only the civilian sector can do so. That DOESN'T mean that government can not affect the economic environment. Government policies do impact the private sector's ability to invest money and resources in equipment and jobs.
JIMMY CARTER, how soon we forget, & we now have Jimmy II in Office. Blaming Bush after 3 yrs of ineffective leadership is getting old. We have an inexpierienced community organizer who has doubled the debt with nothing to show for it & Libs still try to say it's all Bush's fault when the economy was tanked by a housing bubble created by Democrats. Why isn't the economy recovering???? The businessmen know the the white House & Senate is controlled by anti-capitalists who shaft them in a heartbeat, & we wonder why they're sitting on the sidelines.
 
JIMMY CARTER, how soon we forget, & we now have Jimmy II in Office. Blaming Bush after 3 yrs of ineffective leadership is getting old. We have an inexpierienced community organizer who has doubled the debt with nothing to show for it & Libs still try to say it's all Bush's fault when the economy was tanked by a housing bubble created by Democrats. Why isn't the economy recovering???? The businessmen know the the white House & Senate is controlled by anti-capitalists who shaft them in a heartbeat, & we wonder why they're sitting on the sidelines.


Just so you know, there is no such thing as a true capitalist. It is just as flawed to have a complete capitalistic government as it would be to have a communist government. Certain things just can not be held by the private sector because a great deal of times, they fear huge risks.

He is stating that when comparing Bush to Obama polls, you must realize that Obama inherited a problem directly from the last presidency. He is not playing blame games, just being more fair.

Big businesses are sitting on the sidelines because they can't get what they want when democrats are in power, that is because they are selfish and uncertain about the future (this is also because of republicans having the our way or the highway method of thinking. It causes gridlocks).

You said blame games are getting old, yet you blamied democrats for this situation in the same post.

If you didn't realize, we aren't recovering fast enough thanks to political gridlock, not because Obama. The USA's credit status decreased only because of political gridlocks, not because of the debt itself.

Lots of people repeat this same thing I am about to say; if the republicans and democrats stop playing politics, we could have had many things done so far.

While the housing bubble was a great part of it, so was decreasing taxes and going into two wars at the same time.

He doubled the debt? lol doubled the debt, dude? We were at 12 trillion before he went to office, we then hit 14 trillion afterwards. I don't see how that is doubling the debt.... We already had a trillion dollar deficit when he came into office according to some statistics. He also put Bush's unfunded wars into the debt effectively making it seem he increased the debt more than he really did.(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/)

I also think the health care reform is put into the debt as well, something that was necessary. Unfortunately we couldn't get the health care Canada and UK has. A person's health should in no way be decided by some people looking to make a profit.
 
Last edited:
Just so you know, there is no such thing as a true capitalist. It is just as flawed to have a complete capitalistic government as it would be to have a communist government. Certain things just can not be held by the private sector because a great deal of times, they fear huge risks.

He is stating that when comparing Bush to Obama polls, you must realize that Obama inherited a problem directly from the last presidency. He is not playing blame games, just being more fair.

Big businesses are sitting on the sidelines because they can't get what they want when democrats are in power, that is because they are selfish and uncertain about the future.

You said blame games are getting old, yet you blamied democrats for this situation in the same post.

If you didn't realize, we aren't recovering fast enough thanks to political gridlock, not because Obama. The USA's credit status decreased only because of political gridlocks, not because of the debt itself.

Lots of people repeat this same thing I am about to say; if the republicans and democrats stop playing politics, we could have had many things done so far.

While the housing bubble was a great part of it, so was decreasing taxes and going into two wars at the same time.

He doubled the debt? lol doubled the debt dude? we were at 12 trillion before he went to office, we then hit 14 trillion afterwards. I don't see how that is doubling the debt.... We already had a trillion dollar deficit when he came into office according to some statistics. He also put Bush's unfunded wars into the debt effectively making it seem he increased the debt more than he really did.(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/)

I also think the health care reform is put into the debt as well, something that was necessary. Unfortunately we couldn't get the health care Canada and UK has. A person's health should in no way be decided by some people looking to make a profit.
Not talking Latze Fair capitalism, but modern capitalism. I said blaming Bush 3 yrs into his Term is getting old, if reelected will he still be blaming Bush for his 8 yrs of failure? The housing collapse was caused by Dems making banks lower lending standards, Obama was involved with ACORN who pressured Clinton to enforce the downgrade of standards, plus a bit of overderegulation of banking. McCain tried to fix this in '05, but was blocked by Barney frank & others. Senator Obama voted for the bailouts, TARP & other things that ballooned the debt even higher @ the end of Bush's term. Have you read the book by the guy who Obama wanted to run Health Care? Where he said cost cuts must be made & old folks must realize they aren't worth the expence? If UK & Canada's socialized medicine is so great how come so many come here for serious things? Govt health care rationing! Did you notice the VA health care scandals? That's govt health care! The debt rating...everyones upset someone noticed the Emporor has no clothes on & are in denial.
 
I said blaming Bush 3 yrs into his Term is getting old, if reelected will he still be blaming Bush for his 8 yrs of failure? The housing collapse was caused by Dems making banks lower lending standards, Obama was involved with ACORN who pressured Clinton to enforce the downgrade of standards, plus a bit of overderegulation of banking. McCain tried to fix this in '05, but was blocked by Barney frank & others.

Not sure why you would say that when Republicans still love to blame Clinton and Carter for Americas ills as you did in the very next sentence.
 
Not talking Latze Fair capitalism, but modern capitalism. I said blaming Bush 3 yrs into his Term is getting old, if reelected will he still be blaming Bush for his 8 yrs of failure? The housing collapse was caused by Dems making banks lower lending standards, Obama was involved with ACORN who pressured Clinton to enforce the downgrade of standards, plus a bit of overderegulation of banking. McCain tried to fix this in '05, but was blocked by Barney frank & others. Senator Obama voted for the bailouts, TARP & other things that ballooned the debt even higher @ the end of Bush's term. Have you read the book by the guy who Obama wanted to run Health Care? Where he said cost cuts must be made & old folks must realize they aren't worth the expence? If UK & Canada's socialized medicine is so great how come so many come here for serious things? Govt health care rationing! Did you notice the VA health care scandals? That's govt health care! The debt rating...everyones upset someone noticed the Emporor has no clothes on & are in denial.


So when Obama voted for the bailouts, TARP, etc. this made it purely his responsibility in balloning the debt while he was senator? So if another person won the Presidential election, but voted for these same things, it will be their sole responsibility? I thought republicans wanted less regulation on private companies such as banks and oil. Not sure if I follow you on blaming Obama with the housing bubble.

I dont know man; it seems you only attack those you are against.


It is greater because it don't take profit over lives. Many of them come over here because they can't get their care in a quicker manner and that is only because everyone uses the hospitals a lot there. They have more demand than supply; that is what I heard anyways. The average health of Americans is lower than European and Canadian standards, that to me is a problem. Not only with a national health care be good for general americans, it will help businesses out, keeping them from having to pay for health benefits to their employees.

Can someone find a respected link of how much the housing bubble costed the U.S monetarily.
 
That is correct. Some people do mis-read poll questions due to the polls being cleverly developed to make sure the voters, vote the same thing.

Polls aren't really correct anyways. Not everyone has access to a computer. I can almost bet majority of Americans haven't even voted on these popularity polls.
 
not the housing bubble again

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM"]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

idiots

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To"]Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it - YouTube[/ame]

democraps are the true American terrorists. far as polls go well make up your own
 


People who play politics are the "true American terrorists" instead of looking at what can be done to help the majority of Americans. Blaming one party just because your the opposite is foolish as all parties make mistakes.

I generally believe Democrats are better at handling the economy. I'll state some reasons why:

1. Republicans want a smaller government with low government spending, this ignores supply and demand, which is the rule of economics. Considering they want smaller government, why are they unwilling to cut military budgets, but want to cut entitlements which a set to help Americans?

2. Lower government spending = less research and development. The government of a nation is the #1 R&D contributor. Companies generally don't want to touch this subject due to financial concerns. Not speaking of the electronic industry or military industry as we all know these two industries need R&D to compete.

3. Democrats are willing to increase taxes. Don't get me wrong, I think taxes should be increased overall, but the rich should be taxed higher than the middle and lower class. A flat tax would not work with the levels of disparity between lower-middle-high class. it gone so far that some people say the middle-class will become extinct. I don't believe the middle-class is that in danger, but it is dangerous economically for a country to have wealth concentrated in small portions of population.

4. Nationalized health care; something scary to all those who don't understand the benefits of having it. If you ask, I will state more, but I don't feel like going into it much right now.

5. Decreasing government means decreasing regulations. Regulations on the contrary do not kill jobs. Without regulation the economy will go bad; "Too big to fail" anyone? The banks were deregulated and guess what happened? Unchecked loaning which helped expand the housing bubble. Regulations are to help things from going wrong and protect the American public from the evil of business. Don't get my words wrong in that last sentence, I am not demonizing business, just saying they are their for $ not for you.

These are my 5 major reasons. I do not want to see another republican elected in as president or majority in house and senate for at least another 10 years. Any republican that is elected in will swear to overturn anything the Obama administration has done. This will cause a backward policy and could possibly send U.S.A into another sluggish economic growth if not into a full blown depression.

This is the problem with democracy. Most people are not educated enough to know economics and those people will be willing to elect those with a completely different view on things than the previous administration. Not only that but democracy can only think short-term instead of long-terms, which I stated why that is so.
 
People who play politics are the "true American terrorists" instead of looking at what can be done to help the majority of Americans. Blaming one party just because your the opposite is foolish as all parties make mistakes.

I generally believe Democrats are better at handling the economy. I'll state some reasons why:

1. Republicans want a smaller government with low government spending, this ignores supply and demand, which is the rule of economics. Considering they want smaller government, why are they unwilling to cut military budgets, but want to cut entitlements which a set to help Americans?

2. Lower government spending = less research and development. The government of a nation is the #1 R&D contributor. Companies generally don't want to touch this subject due to financial concerns. Not speaking of the electronic industry or military industry as we all know these two industries need R&D to compete.

3. Democrats are willing to increase taxes. Don't get me wrong, I think taxes should be increased overall, but the rich should be taxed higher than the middle and lower class. A flat tax would not work with the levels of disparity between lower-middle-high class. it gone so far that some people say the middle-class will become extinct. I don't believe the middle-class is that in danger, but it is dangerous economically for a country to have wealth concentrated in small portions of population.

4. Nationalized health care; something scary to all those who don't understand the benefits of having it. If you ask, I will state more, but I don't feel like going into it much right now.

5. Decreasing government means decreasing regulations. Regulations on the contrary do not kill jobs. Without regulation the economy will go bad; "Too big to fail" anyone? The banks were deregulated and guess what happened? Unchecked loaning which helped expand the housing bubble. Regulations are to help things from going wrong and protect the American public from the evil of business. Don't get my words wrong in that last sentence, I am not demonizing business, just saying they are their for $ not for you.

These are my 5 major reasons. I do not want to see another republican elected in as president or majority in house and senate for at least another 10 years. Any republican that is elected in will swear to overturn anything the Obama administration has done. This will cause a backward policy and could possibly send U.S.A into another sluggish economic growth if not into a full blown depression.

This is the problem with democracy. Most people are not educated enough to know economics and those people will be willing to elect those with a completely different view on things than the previous administration. Not only that but democracy can only think short-term instead of long-terms, which I stated why that is so.

how little you know. its a fact democrats throw money at problems instead of fixing them. the reason we're 10 trillion in the hole !!!

after seeing what Obozo has trashed the American people demand less gov. and tax. a reason the tea party was formed.

economy??? what economy??? we're in the throws of a massive depression thanks to dems and their problem solving.

you truly over simplify
 
how little you know. its a fact democrats throw money at problems instead of fixing them. the reason we're 10 trillion in the hole !!!

after seeing what Obozo has trashed the American people demand less gov. and tax. a reason the tea party was formed.

economy??? what economy??? we're in the throws of a massive depression thanks to dems and their problem solving.

you truly over simplify

um.... So you blame the 10 trillion dollars on democrats? lol, now THAT is oversimplification

I never said Democrats were perfect at economic policies, I never stated that Democrats never made mistakes in economic policies, I simply stated they are better than Republicans at economic policies. Note how I said "believe", never stated it was fact.

BTW: Throwing money at the problem do spur the economy as long as its done right and it depends on what is causing the economic slow down. Did you think the U.S became Super power right after the Great Depression by using small government and low taxes? NO! It was the spending of the U.S government and the selling of war materials to other countries.

Unfortunately this economic downturn is not like that of the Great Depression.

I know you don't like President Obama, but it is quite impolite/childish to make fun of someone's name. Whether you like it or not; Obama himself is not responsible for any of the economic slow down we are currently witnessing. In fact when he stepped into office and started doing things, the jobs stabilized. We stopped losing all those jobs we were seeing before he got into office and during the beginning of his term. It is fact that he did keep the jobs from decreasing at a rapid rate. Ignoring this is ignorant in itself and I see it as political rivalry getting in the way of better judgement.
 
um.... So you blame the 10 trillion dollars on democrats? lol, now THAT is oversimplification

I never said Democrats were perfect at economic policies, I never stated that Democrats never made mistakes in economic policies, I simply stated they are better than Republicans at economic policies. Note how I said "believe", never stated it was fact.

BTW: Throwing money at the problem do spur the economy as long as its done right and it depends on what is causing the economic slow down. Did you think the U.S became Super power right after the Great Depression by using small government and low taxes? NO! It was the spending of the U.S government and the selling of war materials to other countries.

Unfortunately this economic downturn is not like that of the Great Depression.

I know you don't like President Obama, but it is quite impolite/childish to make fun of someone's name. Whether you like it or not; Obama himself is not responsible for any of the economic slow down we are currently witnessing. In fact when he stepped into office and started doing things, the jobs stabilized. We stopped losing all those jobs we were seeing before he got into office and during the beginning of his term. It is fact that he did keep the jobs from decreasing at a rapid rate. Ignoring this is ignorant in itself and I see it as political rivalry getting in the way of better judgement.

you have belittled yourself in front of everyone. nothing you've said here is even remotely true. best you stay in your fantasy world.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
 
you have belittled yourself in front of everyone. nothing you've said here is even remotely true. best you stay in your fantasy world.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


1. Showing the debt clock doesn't prove anything your saying as I told you Democrats are not perfect nor do not make mistakes. Your just outright lying to yourself if you think Democrats are responsible for the debt by themselves. Every single congressmen and president who did not take action on this is responsible for it which means it wasn't just Democrats. Stop your silly one-sided bashing.

The Keynesian theory is actually correct, so long as its used correctly, this is how we got out of the Great Depression. The government spent like crazy for war materials, this put many people back to work.

I said that that theory works, I didn't say "all the time it will work". I never said that it will work in the case of this economic recession.

You are the one in fantasy world if you don't look at job statistics and you will see that jobs lost have decreased after he got into office. If you don't respond with something at least a little factual (showing a debt clock don't prove anything to me of what we are talking about) then I won't respond back. All you did was insult me then went on thinking you contradicted me, when in fact you haven't.
 
Last edited:
1. Showing the debt clock doesn't prove anything your saying as I told you Democrats are perfect nor do not make mistakes. Your just outright lying to yourself if you think Democrats are responsible for the debt by themselves. Every single congressmen and president who did not take action on this is responsible for it which means it wasn't just Democrats. Stop your silly one-sided bashing.

The Keynesian theory is actually correct, so long as its used correctly, this is how we got out of the Great Depression. The government spent like crazy for war materials, this put many people back to work.

I said that that theory works, I didn't say "all the time it will work". I never said that it will work in the case of this economic recession.

You are the one in fantasy world if you don't look at job statistics and you will see that jobs lost have decreased after he got into office. If you don't respond with something at least a little factual (showing a debt clock don't prove anything to me of what we are talking about) then I won't respond back. All you did was insult me then went on thinking you contradicted me, when in fact you haven't.

I told you Democrats are perfect nor do not make mistakes.

ah even they will tell you unemployment hit almost 10% after your dictator took office. the worst in American history. obviously you don't even read what they say. you've been reprogrammed by the liberal MSM to believe anything.

follow the fools

3279236161_c0e90e2e6d_o.gif


im finished with you
 
Back
Top