Obama 48%, Bush 47%

[The Vorlon]

Rasmussen asked, more or less, who has done more to wreck the US economy..

Obama edged Bush by 1%

Link

Not sure how I would have voted on this one.

Bush in 8 years did staggering damage, but Obama in 2 has done almost as much.

In terms of lifetime un-achievement I think Bush is still ahead, but Obama's single season numbers far exceed Bush's and has been able to do almost as much damage in far less time..

Tough call how to vote on this one...

[Lief 🗽]

Obama has done very little damage to the economy, and quite a bit to improve it (though not enough).

[Sbane]

How has Obama damaged the economy? You can argue he has damaged the future by running up deficits, but how is he to blame for the current problems? Government spending is the only thing stopping the economy from deflating. The deficit that causes may come back to bite us in the ass, but to say it's hurting the economy right now is absolutely wrong.

[Lunar]

If deficits = bad is the essential premise of economic damage, hard to believe that Bush, with his unfunded tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and Iraq War, don't overwhelm emergency Keynesian spending done under a very specific economic philosophy.  Bush's deficit spending seemed much more for kicks and giggles.  Short-term stimulus spending that is conscious, even if not realistic in terms of political realities, that it needs to be offset by long-term deficit reduction, is pretty much superior to any of Bush's major deficit-busting programs, even if you agree that Keynesian spending is fundamentally flawed...the heart's slightly more in the right place within the Obama administration than the Bush administration regarding deficits

Ezra raises an interesting point here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/tax_cuts_and_tanks_require_rea.html

Now, when Democrats get into power and want to do things that aren't cutting taxes or invading other countries, Republicans tend to prefer reducing the deficit to doing whatever it is that Democrats want to do. So though Republicans often campaign based on their concern for deficits, the best way to ensure they remain concerned about deficits is to keep them from holding power.

[Eraserhead]

More silly polling from Scott. Next.

[Beet]

Everyone assumes Bush was horrible, but in his final 5 months Bush did a great deal to help the economy. He should get credit for that.

[Ebowed]

Everyone assumes Bush was horrible, but in his final 5 months Bush did a great deal to help the economy. He should get credit for that.

I give Bush credit for TARP (which the Republicans seem all too willing to pretend they had nothing to do with), but I find it pretty difficult to get past all of that deficit spending on pointless tax cuts for the wealthy and never-ending military conflict in the Middle East.

[Bo]

Well, this is a consequence of the slow economic recovery. Nothing new here.

[Zarn]

Look at all the red avatars making up excuses.

[Lunar]

Look at all the red avatars making up excuses.

You're right, any response whatsoever to a provocative statistic is a stupid excuse.

Is it too late to change my vote from 2008?

[Brittain33]

Do you ever respond to people's responses to your Obama criticism?

[Mercenary]

Bush has done more damage. Give it time though and I'm sure it'll even out.

[jamestroll]

Bush was a pretty good president.

[Zarn]

Bush was a pretty good president.

And now it is the blue avatars' turn.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Typical "blame the incumbent, all the previous presidents were saints" mentality.

[Phony Moderate]

Typical "blame the incumbent, all the previous presidents were saints" mentality.

Indeed. Obama deserves it to an extent though.

[Bo]

Typical "blame the incumbent, all the previous presidents were saints" mentality.

Indeed. Obama deserves it to an extent though.

And other Presidents didn't?

[Badger]

If deficits = bad is the essential premise of economic damage, hard to believe that Bush, with his unfunded tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and Iraq War, don't overwhelm emergency Keynesian spending done under a very specific economic philosophy.  Bush's deficit spending seemed much more for kicks and giggles.  Short-term stimulus spending that is conscious, even if not realistic in terms of political realities, that it needs to be offset by long-term deficit reduction, is pretty much superior to any of Bush's major deficit-busting programs, even if you agree that Keynesian spending is fundamentally flawed...the heart's slightly more in the right place within the Obama administration than the Bush administration regarding deficits

Ezra raises an interesting point here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/tax_cuts_and_tanks_require_rea.html

Now, when Democrats get into power and want to do things that aren't cutting taxes or invading other countries, Republicans tend to prefer reducing the deficit to doing whatever it is that Democrats want to do. So though Republicans often campaign based on their concern for deficits, the best way to ensure they remain concerned about deficits is to keep them from holding power.

<standing ovation to both Lunar and Klein for nailing it.>

Reposted from another thread as relevent to this discussion:

"When Obama took office the economy was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. Only 18 months later the economy is now gaining jobs. The economy was contracting at a Great Depression era rate of 6% in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009. Only one year later the economy grew at a rate of 5.6% and 3.2% respectively. Between the 9 months before Obama took office and the 9 months after inauguration the unemployment rate doubled. Now unemployment is dropping--slowly for now, but dropping nonetheless.

The economy can currently be best described as struggling to get up off its knees. That still sucks, but considering when Obama took office it was flat on its back and flatlining---yes, that's laudable improvement."

[Vepres]

If deficits = bad is the essential premise of economic damage, hard to believe that Bush, with his unfunded tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and Iraq War, don't overwhelm emergency Keynesian spending done under a very specific economic philosophy.  Bush's deficit spending seemed much more for kicks and giggles.  Short-term stimulus spending that is conscious, even if not realistic in terms of political realities, that it needs to be offset by long-term deficit reduction, is pretty much superior to any of Bush's major deficit-busting programs, even if you agree that Keynesian spending is fundamentally flawed...the heart's slightly more in the right place within the Obama administration than the Bush administration regarding deficits

Ezra raises an interesting point here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/tax_cuts_and_tanks_require_rea.html

Now, when Democrats get into power and want to do things that aren't cutting taxes or invading other countries, Republicans tend to prefer reducing the deficit to doing whatever it is that Democrats want to do. So though Republicans often campaign based on their concern for deficits, the best way to ensure they remain concerned about deficits is to keep them from holding power.

<standing ovation to both Lunar and Klein for nailing it.>

Reposted from another thread as relevent to this discussion:

"When Obama took office the economy was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. Only 18 months later the economy is now gaining jobs. The economy was contracting at a Great Depression era rate of 6% in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009. Only one year later the economy grew at a rate of 5.6% and 3.2% respectively. Between the 9 months before Obama took office and the 9 months after inauguration the unemployment rate doubled. Now unemployment is dropping--slowly for now, but dropping nonetheless.

The economy can currently be best described as struggling to get up off its knees. That still sucks, but considering when Obama took office it was flat on its back and flatlining---yes, that's laudable improvement."

The economy could not have been falling like that perpetually. For all we know, the growth was simply the natural bounce back that would have occurred anyway. That is a cum hoc fallacy.

And of course, Democrats love to use the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. Just because they're hypocrites doesn't mean they don't have a good point.

[opebo]

Not sure how I would have voted on this one.

Bush in 8 years did staggering damage, but Obama in 2 has done almost as much.

What's he done?

[Derek]

Yes the people are beginning to wake up. Bush could very well beat Obama in a national election today.

[Zarn]

Apparently, they are not waking up, then. Bush wasn't really that much better.

[Badger]

If deficits = bad is the essential premise of economic damage, hard to believe that Bush, with his unfunded tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and Iraq War, don't overwhelm emergency Keynesian spending done under a very specific economic philosophy.  Bush's deficit spending seemed much more for kicks and giggles.  Short-term stimulus spending that is conscious, even if not realistic in terms of political realities, that it needs to be offset by long-term deficit reduction, is pretty much superior to any of Bush's major deficit-busting programs, even if you agree that Keynesian spending is fundamentally flawed...the heart's slightly more in the right place within the Obama administration than the Bush administration regarding deficits

Ezra raises an interesting point here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/tax_cuts_and_tanks_require_rea.html

Now, when Democrats get into power and want to do things that aren't cutting taxes or invading other countries, Republicans tend to prefer reducing the deficit to doing whatever it is that Democrats want to do. So though Republicans often campaign based on their concern for deficits, the best way to ensure they remain concerned about deficits is to keep them from holding power.

<standing ovation to both Lunar and Klein for nailing it.>

Reposted from another thread as relevent to this discussion:

"When Obama took office the economy was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. Only 18 months later the economy is now gaining jobs. The economy was contracting at a Great Depression era rate of 6% in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009. Only one year later the economy grew at a rate of 5.6% and 3.2% respectively. Between the 9 months before Obama took office and the 9 months after inauguration the unemployment rate doubled. Now unemployment is dropping--slowly for now, but dropping nonetheless.

The economy can currently be best described as struggling to get up off its knees. That still sucks, but considering when Obama took office it was flat on its back and flatlining---yes, that's laudable improvement."

The economy could not have been falling like that perpetually. For all we know, the growth was simply the natural bounce back that would have occurred anyway. That is a cum hoc fallacy.

And of course, Democrats love to use the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. Just because they're hypocrites doesn't mean they don't have a good point.

Two points, Vepres: First, IIRC this was the worst economic contraction of GDP since the Great Depression. IIRC, the relative rate of recovery now has been measurably faster than most recession recoveries, particularly compared to the relative magnitude of the preceding economic downturn. It's obviously not a lightning-turn around, but who realistically expected that? Personally I think trying to explain a shift from three-quarter a million jobs disappearing a month to positive job growth (over 800,000 net jobs created in the first half of 2010) only a year later to be simply due to "cyclical market forces" sounds like grasping at straws.

Second, even if for sake of argument, this is merely the economy experiencing a natural cycle of economic recovery as you say, aren't you thereby conceding that our current economic woes aren't a result of Obama's policies? Your case seems to say that our currently high unemployment is simply a market driven cyclical "bust and boom" which at worse Obama's policies (supposedly) haven't made much impact on. Doesn't that worst case analysis alone put him in in a much better category than the Bush Administration whose supply-driven fiscal policies and lassiz-faire view towards regulating markets laid the groundwork for this disaster?

The comparison with Bush isn't just political rhetoric. Just about every Republican politician/candidate of note cheered the policies Bush campaigned on, cheered harder when he actually managed to implement his campaign promises, vociferously defended him and his policies when he ran for reelection, then expressed shock as everything turned to s#it and---now that his personal popularity rivals head lice---bemoan W's "betrayal of conservative ideals". Why the surprise? What "betrayal"? Bush did exactly what he said he'd do, just as conservatives wanted.

The key is this isn't simply a historical debate over W as a president; it directly impacts choices in 2010. With the exception of having abandoned any interest in immigration reform/"amnesty", can anyone explain how the economic platform of any major GOP candidate out there now is even marginally different from Bush's? Running against Bush's economic record might be as irrelevant as Republicans claim if their current candidate's economic policies weren't uniformly identical to W's. As the Great Recession is the real life example of implementing such piss-poor policies, why shouldn't Democrats run hard against that?

[MODU]

To be honest, it's neither Obama nor Bush, but it is Congress.  Congress has the power of the budget and legislation.  The President just puts forward the goals and policies, with the power to veto the actions of Congress.  Obama is suffering because of a run-away Democrat-led Congress who is focused on the wrong tasks, such as card check and cap-and-trade, when they should be working to creating an economic environment that draws in new investment.  Because of this, he is suffering from Congress' poor reputation (which is somewhere in the 20% range).

[Brittain33]

Bush in 8 years did staggering damage, but Obama in 2 has done almost as much.

In terms of lifetime un-achievement I think Bush is still ahead, but Obama's single season numbers far exceed Bush's and has been able to do almost as much damage in far less time..