71% disapproval for BHO on economy

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TEAMme]

And that's Gallup. Not as skewed as CNN, NBC or CBS in demographics or trick-questioning but still polls more Dem voters than Repubs if you are paying attention to the details. 71% in an already weighted sample is even worse news for the regime than it appears.

Congress not polling well either, but Prez winner typically takes the House with him. Dems' biggest worry is Senate where they are defending many more seats than the R's this time.

 

[TEAMme]

Yet...you are discussing it.

 

[BuffaloBayouBevo]

Namewithheld

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BrothaHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dheiman]

The 71% means absolutely nothing when the only question that matters is will you (71%) still vote for BO in 2012? The other 29% is a given since they don't hold him accountable for anything. All the polls still show generally speaking a neck and neck race. Thus 71% doesn't mean **** if half of this group disapproves of his economic leadership but will still vote for him.

 

[UTChE96]

It means a lot because the health of the economy is the best indicator of re-election.

 

[ShinerTX]

First course of action is that the R's have to nominate someone who will be clearly better.

Trot out the next Bob Dole or John McCain and we will get 4 more years of "without a clue". Add to that no accountability in his lame duck years, and it will not be good.

 

[UTChE96]

Good point. Romney, Perry, or some other McCandidate is not going to cut it. We need a young, articulate, enthusiastic leader like Marco Rubio.

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornsWin]

As I pointed out before the 2008 election, Obama did not have the experience needed to govern the country. (I voted for neither candidate).

Obama supporters said that to run an 18 month campaign showed leadership. Uh, ... NO!

He has been shown to be even less competent than I had feared. It is now clear that Obama mistakes sound bites (Audacity of Hope, Change You Can Believe In) and speeches for true leadership.

While it is true he inherited a financial crisis, he has made it worse, and we are looking at 1.5 Trillion dollar deficits for a long time without significant sacrifices.

 

[ShinerTX]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

Shiner - so do you think Rubio is qualified?

 

[ShinerTX]

I really, really like Marco Rubio. However, his resume is basically the same as Obama's was in 2008. So, I'd have to say no.

Ideally I'd want someone with real business leadership experience AND military experience in addition to leadership experience in government. I don't think that is too much to ask. It is kind of a an important job.

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ShinerTX]

It went fine until Nancy took over Congress.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[ShinerTX]

Compared to where we are now? Hell yes. Unemployment 4.6%.
The economy was growing, the deficit was shrinking.

Nancy had one heck of a 4-year reign of terror.

 

[BuffaloBayouBevo]

Nepal abolished its monarchy in 2007, so it seems to me that this is the causative factor for everything to happen since then.

Either that or the release of No Country for Old Men. That movie scared the **** out of me.

 

[JohnnyM]

What did Nancy do after becoming SOTH that precipitated the credit collapse and housing crash?

Correlation does not equal causation unless you're intellectually lazy, biased, or both.

 

[Uninformed]

Good question. Could Pelosi have pushed to remove Barney Frank from the House Financial Services Committee and have him replaced by someone more financially responsible?

 

[JohnnyM]

Uninformed - So you think Barney Frank is the key man to blame in the financial collapse? Another gem. Pelosi could have also pushed for impeachment of Bush - he had more to do with the current disaster than Barney Frank and removing him at the time would have likely done about as much good. If they fire the chef after your steaks are burnt, the dinner still sucks.

You basically walked into my point which is that no one person is to blame for our screwed up financial system, and it's absurd to suggest that everything was fine and dandy the day Pelosi took the gavel and only after that did the problems start. That's blindly partisan and complete nonsense.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[UTChE96]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[JohnnyM]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

Well, of course, I could have mentioned that Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie but was blocked by Dems.
The Link
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.