Nah, the car was heading for a rough patch, and instead of driving cautiously, he slammed on the gas and steered erratically. By trying to avoid the potholes and get through the rough patch more quickly, he destroyed the chassis and transmission.
He has categorically made things worse and not better. But he's taken care of his friends, so that's all that counts.
Nor are Bush or Cheney. Disgraced politicians tend to become more "popular" (that is, less despised) when they leave office. Anger fades when a politician is no longer doing unpopular things in power. That's fairly obvious. People reserve interest and passion for people who still are relevant to their lives. People who no longer wield power tend to fade (up or down) toward the mean, unless they do really noteworthy things (like Carter's work for Habitat for Humanity has pushed him solidly above the median mark).
You're comparing someone who's been out of office for 28 years and three months versus two people who have been out of office for only three months. That's not going to fly with any reasoned analysis. Clearly, there's still plenty of vitriol for President Bush and Vice President Cheney, especially the Vice President. President Obama and Vice President Biden have struck out on a clearly different path, and while personally they (and especially the President) are quite popular, their individual policies lag behind those numbers. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are increasing in popularity because of the difference in those policies. When you add specificity to "Change", you're going to lose popularity. People attached the change they wanted to see for themselves; when it differed from the change the Obama Administration is trying to achieve, of course people are going to look to the previous administration when times were better.
I think the passion for the majority of the populous fades pretty much immediately. The die-hard partisans perhaps hold the vitriol longer. The average American, not so much. Die-hard conservatives continue to hate Clinton and Gore. Most Americans lost interest in both pretty fast. From what I've seen, interest in former Presidents and Vice Presidents fades pretty quickly. It's not a coincidence...they're no longer relevant. Doubtful. Cheney and Bush (if he is too) are increasing in popularity because they're no longer enacting unpopular policies. That's the simplest explanation. If so, use Obama's approval ratings to show that. Saying that Americans are expressing their dislike of Obama's policies by approving of Cheney rather than disapproving of Obama seems like a bit of a stretch.
So, for those who blame Obama for the economy (after being in office for just about 3 months), do you blame the previous administration for the lack of awareness for the 9/11 attacks, considering it was after their administration had almost 8 months of time to get on the ball?
It's a fallacious comparison. President Obama has focused on remaking the economy, and he's made it dramatically worse. The Bush Administration didn't focus on Al Qaeda, and it was to our peril. However, after 9/11, they focused on the War on Terrorism almost to the exclusion of everything else. As a result, we have been attacked since. I don't expect anyone to be perfect. I expect when they make a mistake, however, that they quickly rectify it.
I don't know if he's made it "dramatically" worse. It hasn't gotten better, but I think it's like saying that someone who just got on a sinking ship isn't bailing fast enough and therefore is to blame for the boat sinking. Couple of funny things about that comment. 1. When it happened, conservatives widely blamed it on Clinton, despite it being almost 9 months into Bush's term. In fact, they still mostly blame Clinton for it, almost ignoring that Bush could have had anything to do with it. 2. The Cole attack, which at the extreme tail end of Clintons last term, should have been a clue to the next incoming Administration to be on the look out. 3. Unless you are counting home grown terrorist attacks, there weren't any attacks on US Soil after the initial WTC bombings of 93. And those attacks came like a month into Clintons 1st administration. That was mostly blamed (by conservatives) on Clinton. You want to act like in 3 months that Obama could have done anything so drastic to the economy (both negatively or positively), I get that. I personally try not to hyperbole and make statements that are obviously based on political talking points that I've read somewhere. (I also try not to act like I'm not a knee jerk conservative republican honk when it's obvious I am, like you do. But that's just me). But I don't think that you can then, with a straight face, not then 100% blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks considering they came under Bush's watch, he was warned about the possible attacks AND still did nothing about it till after it happened. Man, you must have been waiting a long time for Bush to rectify any of his mistakes if you're already bitching about waiting for Obama to rectify one 3 months into his first term.
He's tripled the deficit and quadrupled the debt. He's nationalized two auto companies, is looking to do the same to banks and healthcare. If that's not dramatic enough for you, then I don't know what is. I don't think President Clinton deserves all the blame, but he deserves some of it. He was offered Osama Bin Laden twice and turned it down because he was thinking like a lawyer rather than a Commander-in-Chief. Khobar Towers happened under his watch as did the Cole and the African Embassy bombings. I think the permanent intelligence agencies that served under several administrations are mostly to blame. And the Bush Administration deserves some too. As I pointed out in response to the first paragraph, he has done a number of things more drastic than anyone before him, including flushing $787B down the toilet. If you don't understand that we can't just print money without it biting us in the ass than I don't know what to tell you. I like this strategy; it's a cute one. You try to belittle the argument by telling the poster they're reciting "talking points" and that clearly they're toeing a party line. Nice try, but false. I never voted for President Bush. I'm also no conservative. I'm a free-marketeer who adheres to a largely laissez-faire outlook to life. Sorry, julius, but that was a swing and a miss.
Yah, but WHY has he done all that? because the guy before him basically set that train on it's tracks. What else is he going to do? Let GM and Chrysler go belly up? I really doubt that would be better for the economy. quadrupled the debt? You mean we're not 40 trillion in debt? he also had to deal with people thinking he was "wagging" the dog to get the pointless Monica Lewinsky shit off the air. It wasn't a huge difference than what Bush did (bail-out wise). so explain why your record of commenting on politics and the politicians that are involved, has been far more in favor of Bush and conservatives and very little criticism of them? I'd be like Ralph Nader saying he's not an idiot.
Yep, let them go bankrupt. A full Chapter 11. The problem for the Obama Administration is that it would have put the UAW on the rocks, which he couldn't see happen--he owes the union. So now, the government and the UAW runs GW. As for the debt figure, check the CBO projections. That's a complete non-sequitor. Thank you for highlighting your financincal ignorance. If you don't see the difference betwen the bank bailout bill (which I didn't like) and the spending package (which I hate with ever fiber of my being), then you should read more and comment less. I highly approved of President Bush's prosecution of the War on Terror. I hated his spending programs. I outlined my political philosophy to you and you wonder why I don't embrace President Obama's policies? Seriously? I said it was a failure, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration to the intelligence agencies. And like I said, hindsight is 20/20. 19 guys with boxcutters? To put in the security required to stop 9/11 would have taken extreme measures that would have been politically impossible. As for the NYT, I subscribe to the weekend package. It's a pretty decent paper.
I do blame the previous administration for the 9/11 attacks. It was fully their responsibility to watch for our safety. But it's a little more complicated than that. The attacks were planned for a decade. And the response was more than lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at an empty training camp and an aspirin factory. Regarding the economy, there's a large school of economists who think the worst of the recession would have been past us by now and the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse. Even Obama's longer term projections have gone from rosy to gloom as far as the eye can see. With all the shovel ready projects that justified $850B in emergency spending, we're shedding 600K+ jobs per month. Do the math and you realize we can't sustain losing 600K+ jobs per month for half of Obama's entire term before we're at peak depression era unemployment levels. The spending flies in the face of reason. If you recognize we have boom/bust cycles then keeping GM strong means you cover its negative cash flow of $20B for a year or two while we ride this cycle out. A huge contrast between $40B and $850B ($850B on top of $750B already passed). Funny thing about credit cards. It doesn't matter if you borrowed $1K on it 10 years ago or yesterday. It sucks to have the $1K balance. It sucks even worse when your minimum payment keeps you from paying social security recipients what they're due. The good news for those people is that they'll be able to collect extended unemployment benefits instead.
There is another large school of economists who think the opposite. Is there any economist who thinks that will happen? Why not say that if we keep losing jobs at that rate for a few years, there will be more unemployed people than there are people? Keeping GM strong through boom and bust cycles is not the job of the government. That's the job of GM management. Unfortunately, they failed. I'm not sure what connection there is between costs of the GM bailout and the stimulus package. Are you suggesting the economy would be just fine if we'd just given GM more money but done nothing else? barfo
No there aren't. Find one that isn't a sycophant. There's no sign of any companies hiring. They're all laying off these days. I do think the number of job losses will decline, but that means unemployment has reached 25% or more. If govt. is to be a safety net, then it should be one. Why should it insure your health and not that of GM? Yes.
I suspect that any name I throw out you'll label a sycophant, so this is pretty pointless, but here's one name: Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel prize in economics. Interesting prediction, but what do you base it on? Because not everything has to be taken to the extreme, does it? If we legalize pot, do we have to legalize giving heroin to kindergartners? Interesting. On the one hand, you predict 25% unemployment, yet on the other hand, the economy would be just fine if we'd only given GM more money. How many people do you think GM employs? barfo
GM? 100,000. The auto dealers? Half a million. The auto parts makers and repair guys? 5M. This Paul Krugman? Krugman fears lost decade for US due to half-steps
30M, and we're at 6M and counting. Krugman doesn't seem very optimistic. He calls what we're doing half measures. You want to try and find another economist now?
6 and 30 are different numbers. You claim that we will have 30M unemployed because we didn't save GM, and GM is responsible for 6M jobs. Explain. I didn't claim he was optimistic. I claimed he was an example of an economist who didn't think "the actions of the administration have made things a lot worse". He believes they need to do more of what they are doing. barfo
650,000 jobs lost x 20 months = 13M + 6M already lost = 19M overall for the whole economy. Unemployment is at ~9% now with 6M lost, what do you think it will be at 19M lost? 20 months is arbitrary, 1/2 of Obama's only term. The automakers are responsible directly and indirectly for 6M total jobs. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/18/business/econwatch/entry5023220.shtml As for Krugman: http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393 You might want to look for another economist who's not a sycophant.
