I just feel that they are confused in deciding what measures to take.

Speaking of grades, I still want to see what kind of grades Obama made in college.

They polled 49 economists and asked them to rate Obama from 0-100. And he rated 58. And that's failing? I guess if you're using school grade numbers. But it seems that 58 out of 100 is better than half. Why is a 60% approval rating considered good, but a 58% economic rating is considered "failing"?

I'm not defending Obama's economic plan (I'm not an economist) But I think we should investigate how the "grade" was figured.

Whenever I read "ultra-left", it's obvious that it's intended to draw people into a partisan, divisive discussion. There was a left and right once, now they are just archaic labels used to keep the populace distracted and fighting amongst themselves while they are being raped like no other.

Peace

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They polled 49 economists and asked them to rate Obama from 0-100. And he rated 58. And that's failing? I guess if you're using school grade numbers. But it seems that 58 out of 100 is better than half. Why is a 60% approval rating considered good, but a 58% economic rating is considered "failing"?

I'm not defending Obama's economic plan (I'm not an economist) But I think we should investigate how the "grade" was figured.

58 was failing when i was in school
60 is bad as well


take the 2008 election
obama had 53% of the us voting population vote for him- thats a failing grade as well if you go by percentage
66 million is a d if you go buy that number any rate they are not good

people tout polls numbers all the time as being acurate.

90s-a
80s-b
70s-c
60s-d
50s-F

your right tho i dont need polls numbers or grade to tell me obama is bad for this country-i know he is

numbers dont lie people who tell us what they are suppose to mean often do

numbers count no matter whose in office if its a republican and bad numbers are suppose to count and not matter when a democrat is in office is bs.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by neo67]

Are these the same economists who said that outsourcing wouldn't hurt Americans and that our economy was sound for the last decade? These economists couldn't project themselves out of a paper bag and they're giving Obama a hard time, yeah right. These economists have been proven wrong time and again. Not saying that he's done everything right, the right thing to do would be to do nothing (basically) but then he'd still get a failing grade by these economists.

Because of Obama our great grandchildren will be put into endless debt.

People need to wake up, he is maintaining the status quo, nothing more nothing less. I'm tired of hearing this on Fox when under Bush, of course they didn't seem to care about the debt he racked up. I'm also tired of hearing about grandchildren. Lowering government spending shouldn't depend on which side of the same coin is in office.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by ghaleon12]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They polled 49 economists and asked them to rate Obama from 0-100. And he rated 58. And that's failing? I guess if you're using school grade numbers. But it seems that 58 out of 100 is better than half. Why is a 60% approval rating considered good, but a 58% economic rating is considered "failing"?

I'm not defending Obama's economic plan (I'm not an economist) But I think we should investigate how the "grade" was figured.

He averaged 59 out of 100, not 58 with 42% rating him below 60%. Still, his average is 59. In school terms that's failing. But Geithner is the real mark to watch because he's supposed to be the "head" of this department. He's rated at 51. What will be interesting will be to watch and see if Geithner's grade continues to drop and if so, will Obama replace him?

the socialist obama regime has already hit a snag. all his plans revloved around taxing the rich- last i heard the rich have lost half there wealth, which means they are making less which means the less they can be taxed which means all obama social programs dont have the cash to be funded right now this day so whats that mean to you and me? the tax burden falls on us.

how does this pertain the the economy? the less money we have paying extra taxes,higher utilities,etc means we have less to spend making the economy worse.

obama needs to be stopped right now. this second!!!!! i dont condone the spending the republicans did but the kindergarten mentailty of " i didnt start it or" just cause they did we can to" this is money we dont have. if you or me tried to do what our government is doing theres no way in hell we could get away with that insanity.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by neo67]

This indebtedness has been a trend for a long time, under Obama its pretty bad but its par for the course. Debt shouldn't be tolerated under one president and rejected by another, which is what seemly many people and news networks do. The "wild pork spending" only accounts for less than 2% of the budget. Fox plays people off as dumb. They criticize the millions of dollars spent on "fruit flies" but omit that gene research on fruit flies has given us an incredible amount of knowledge that will have an impact on cancer treatment, gene therapy ect. down the road. The layman automatically reacts, "millions on fruit flies?! Those morons!".

I definitely agree their needs to be a change to the education system. We need to strip away the meaningless crap students learn, which is a vast majority, and teach them essential skills that will make them successful and happy in life - things they won't end up forgetting when the next semester rolls around.

I'm calling Obama and his administration leftist because he is leading us toward socialism like no other president in our memories except perhaps FDR and only our parents or grandparents remember FDR.

It was already going socialist under Bush when the bank bailout passed. Bush even considered bailing out GM towards the end, that's not socialism? The government intervened helping the banks using American taxpayer dollars, hurting the taxpayers, and you expect the taxpayers to not expect equal treatment? You can't bailout these failing enterprises on taxpayer money and not expect a "bailout" for people. Funding these failing companies amounts to socialized debt, socialized profit is what seems to be coming to one degree or the other.

Obama could have passed on socializing the debt, but the outcome of that would have been many times worse than what we're seeing now. He'd been criticized for not bailing out the companies so its a lose-lose.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by ghaleon12]

porkbarrel spending and saying it only adds up to 2% is trying to play people off as dumb

government waste is government waste

you tell me yeah we need educational reform when if a mother and father dont have jobs-dont have the money to buy books and cloth their kids,put food on their table and a roof over their head.

i am sorry but in my opinion the economy is the most single important issue we face today., but then again what do i know


when i,a republican am saying this there is something wrong with the democratic party


cutting taxes-putting people back to work and stimulating small business is the only way to get the economy ball rolling agian.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by neo67]