Obama, Geithner Receive Failing Grades From Economists in Survey

Obama, Geithner Receive Failing Grades From Economists in Survey

www.foxnews.com

President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

On average, they gave the president a mark of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42 percent of respondents graded Obama below 60. Geithner fared even worse, with an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

"The Obama team has blown it," said David Resler of Nomura Securities.

Some economists were underwhelmed by the $787 billion stimulus package, with 43 percent saying the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus. "The package already passed was too much too late,"

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com

Obama and his ultra left cabinet and advisors have failed miserably economically when the economy is the main issue.

The worst economy since the Great Depression, what does Obama do but spend wildly on earmarks and worthless liberal social programs that do nothing to support the failing economy. Because of Obama our great grandchildren will be put into endless debt.

One of the causes of America's inabillity to compete in the world market is labor union dominance in the workplace causing automaker failure, steel industry failure, failure in every industry where unions rule. What is Obama trying to do but strengthen unions (his voter base, big surprise!). His legislation, CARD CHECK, essentially allows union thugs to come into the workplace and force workers to vote union at the risk of their own economic (see physical, bodily) demise.

The good news is that Obama has given many Americans a lot of hope! HOPE FOR WHAT I wonder?????



www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by plumranch


The question: Is Obama and his ultra left wing cabinet trying to damage the economy on purpose to further their agenda?

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.

online.wsj.com...

"The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August."

Maybe these economists should start ranking themselves.

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?

reply to post by ghaleon12

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.

If you don't care about debt totals you aren't being realistic. Obama/ Pelosi/ Reid are compiling a total debt like 5 times what the TOTAL debt was BEFORE Obama. Obama makes whatever debt Bush and other presidents accumulated look like peanuts!

We have to pay the considerable debt interest. What do we do, borrow more money to pay the interest?

Why go into debt anyway when the consensis generally is that the wild pork spending spree will accomplish very little in economic recovery. The headaches the society will endure from the new ongoing social programs will burden generations to come. Our children need to learn how to PRODUCE not how to live off the government and other people's taxes.

reply to post by Dr Love


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.

The reckless spending of Obama, Pelosi and Reid is the biggest economic issue of our time (other than perhaps the banking practices brought on by CRA). None of this seems to be important enough to be discussed in this light headed society and I think it should be!

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]

reply to post by ghaleon12

I'm not complaining about the bailout of legitimate institutions. It has its pros and cons, as you say even liberal Bush did it or considered it.

What I don't like is the reckless, rediculous pork barrel spending like Reid's silly train to Vegas that practically noone will ride but will cost billions.

IMHO the worst possible thing Obama is doing is starting or continuing social spending for illegals and low incomes. Spending that will accomplish nothing in economic recovery and once started will be difficult to end but will obligate the government to continue ad infinitum.

I see it as spending our last dollar to put us into hopeless debt and obligation for generations. That is the Obama strategy, take us all down economically and make us obligated to the government like good little socialists! It's pathologic.

The thing is, these weren't a group of randomly selected economists -- these are a group of conservatives, the overwhelming majority of whom backed John McCain's economic policies in the presidential campaign. Moreover, they aren't too bright: half of them thought the recession ended seven months ago!

Check out these numbers from the WSJ archives of previous surveys:

February 2008: 76% of the economists surveyed by the WSJ said they supported either McCain or Romney on economic policy over Obama or Clinton
May 2008: 75% of these economists said they preferred McCain's fiscal policy to Obama's
August 2008: 49% said the recession had already ended, and 50% believed the economy would be the same or better by election day.
September 2008: 66% said they opposed any new stimulus plan
December 2008: the economists predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8.4%. It's already at 8.1% and rising

www.dailykos.com...

Hmm...Well thats me I like to hear all sides of the story-and always check my sources.
Just Saying!