• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Poll: 44% of Americans Worse Off Under Obama - Bloomberg

By a 44 percent to 34 percent margin, Americans say they believe they are worse off than when President Barack Obama took office in early 2009, when the U.S. was in the depths of a recession compounded by the September 2008 financial crisis and the economy was losing as many as 820,000 jobs a month.

...fewer than 1 in 10 people expecting unemployment to return to pre-recession levels within the next two years...

The Bloomberg poll shows 66 percent of Americans think the U.S. is going in the wrong direction now.

As the public grasps for solutions, the Republican Party is breaking through in the message war on the budget and economy. A majority of Americans say job growth would best be revived with prescriptions favored by the party: cuts in government spending and taxes, the Bloomberg Poll shows. Even 40 percent of Democrats share that view.

Though Americans rate unemployment and the economy as a greater concern than the deficit and government spending, the issues are now closely connected. Sixty-five percent of respondents say they believe the size of the federal deficit is “a major reason” the jobless rate hasn’t dropped significantly.



your thoughts???
 
in 1980, it was "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

in 2012, it's gonna be "can you AFFORD four more years?"

can AMERICA afford four more?

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
Man, this is shaping up to be very bad for liberal progressives.....


j-mac
 
Man, this is shaping up to be very bad for liberal progressives.....


j-mac

They don't care... they are all in denial...
river-nile-map.jpg
 
And this is OBama's fault how?
 
So Obama has no culpability for anything? Is it still Bush?

I realize it's hard to keep striaght everyone's separate opinions, but I don't believe any president is responsible for the economy. I don't believe government can control it at all. Whatever they do is largely to help limit the harm or help the recovery, but both largely have minimal effect.
 
I realize it's hard to keep striaght everyone's separate opinions, but I don't believe any president is responsible for the economy. I don't believe government can control it at all. Whatever they do is largely to help limit the harm or help the recovery, but both largely have minimal effect.

I absolutely disagree that the government cannot significantly help or hinder the economy.
 
I absolutely disagree that the government cannot significantly help or hinder the economy.

You may disagree. You wouldn't be the first. But I believe if they could, they would. If the election was all Obama cared about, he would have the economy humming. Same with congress critters. The fact that neither party can get it there suggests that they can't.
 
You may disagree. You wouldn't be the first. But I believe if they could, they would. If the election was all Obama cared about, he would have the economy humming. Same with congress critters. The fact that neither party can get it there suggests that they can't.

While it is must easier to affect negative consequences than positive ones, there are definitely steps the government could take to cause fairly quick, positive changes. They just don't do it...probably largely because it would be harmful in the short term (and they don't want to lose votes), it would decrease government authority (and they don't want to lose power), or it would anger one voting block or another (again, don't want to lose votes). Government has become more about reelection than about running the country. That is, by and large, the reason we don't see affective policies to help the economy. The correct course is not often the most popular one, and there's too much to lose personally.
 
While it is must easier to affect negative consequences than positive ones, there are definitely steps the government could take to cause fairly quick, positive changes. They just don't do it...probably largely because it would be harmful in the short term (and they don't want to lose votes), it would decrease government authority (and they don't want to lose power), or it would anger one voting block or another (again, don't want to lose votes). Government has become more about reelection than about running the country. That is, by and large, the reason we don't see affective policies to help the economy. The correct course is not often the most popular one, and there's too much to lose personally.

The trouble with that is they often lose their seats anyway. So, if this were true, they save themselves nothing. And they have to know this. So, I just don't believe they can.
 
And this is OBama's fault how?

It is at least in part his fault, through his policies. It is COMPLETELY his responsibility to correct it. He is the President... captain of the ship. At this point, I think a lot of people think they are on the Titanic.
 
It is at least in part his fault, through his policies. It is COMPLETELY his responsibility to correct it. He is the President... captain of the ship. At this point, I think a lot of people think they are on the Titanic.

Again, I don't believe he or any leader can correct it. There are too many forces outside the government that effect it. Now, if you want to go to a government more like, say, China's, then they could probably do more. But I don't think you really want that.
 
You may disagree. You wouldn't be the first. But I believe if they could, they would. If the election was all Obama cared about, he would have the economy humming. Same with congress critters. The fact that neither party can get it there suggests that they can't.

What you fail to understand, is that Obama was, and may still be, convinced that his policy decisions and programs (Stimulus, etc.) should have gotten the economy humming.

They didn't.
 
Okay. Here's my honest take on this.

The thread/article title is meant to induce a correlation = causation, or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" type of fallacy. Just because 44% of Americans feel that they are "worse off" under Obama, doesn't not mean Obama is entirely responsible for them being worse off. Capische?

Remember, Obama took over an economy that was in a downward spiral back then. It was all ANY president could do to arrest the descent, much less climb out of the hole. During the worst part of the recession, we were bleeding of hundreds of thousands of jobs PER MONTH. I mean, at least we're on a positive trajectory now.
 
Okay. Here's my honest take on this.

The thread/article title is meant to induce a correlation = causation, or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" type of fallacy. Just because 44% of Americans feel that they are "worse off" under Obama, doesn't not mean Obama is entirely responsible for them being worse off. Capische?

Remember, Obama took over an economy that was in a downward spiral back then. It was all ANY president could do to arrest the descent, much less climb out of the hole. During the worst part of the recession, we were bleeding of hundreds of thousands of jobs PER MONTH. I mean, at least we're on a positive trajectory now.

Why you wanna go and ruin a perfectly good rightwing circle-jerk? LOL!
 
Back
Top Bottom