Poll: Bush, Obama nearly tied for blame on bad economy

Actually, despite nearly 2 years of obama's blame Bush tactics, slightly more people now blame obama for the bad economy than they do Bush.

Poll article

Forty-eight percent of voters now believe that President Obama's policies are to blame for the bad economy, while 47 percent fault former President George W. Bush.

According to a new Rasmussen survey, Obama's 48 percent represents a three-point increase since last month, giving him a greater share of the blame than Bush for the first time since May 2009, when the question was first polled.

At that time, 62 percent of likely voters blamed Bush and 27 percent blamed Obama

Major opinion turnaround ...

reply to post by centurion1211


...and neither group of respondants has much of a grasp on the reality of the matter. The blame for this whole mess still lies upon a Congress which stripped most regulation from lending institutions, pushed for more lending to people who were unable to repay, and then compounded the problems dramatically by bailing out the banks from their own stupidity and ineptness.

Fact is, if you wanna get technical, Bush warned Congress before the recession and they ignored him completely. Obama has essentially done little to improve the short term economy and a whole lot to potentially devastate the economy down the road. Our next recession or the dip back into full blown recession will justifiably be laid at his feet and can be blamed 50/50 on him and Congress.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


You are absolutely correct in that the (democrat controlled) congress holds the purse strings of the U.S. government, and has since 2006.

However, people seem to want to associate whomever is president with the state of economy, so it it still news that the pendulum has swung over to blaming obama.

lol wow bush is still getting blamed and he is not even TPOTUS. dang libs!

In 1920 there was no debt. Duh, there was no central bank.

In 1948 we were $250 billion in the hole.
In 1972 we were $435 billion in the hole.

In 2000 we were $5.674 triliion in debt. (Bush's first year in office)
In 2009 we were just over $12 trillion in debt. (Transitioned out of Bush's era)

Bush doubled the US debt in 8 years.

I am not sure how Obama is even being compared in his 20 months in office.

Its just goes to show you that even the "Much Famed Poster Boy for the Democrats" who was the answer to our (not mine) dreams is now getting a good flogging for the problems in the economy.

What a fickle bunch.



I agree with the poster above. It is the fault of Congress.

I would also like to blame Kim Jong Il and Imadinnerjacket. Somehow, someway I just feel the need to tie them to this problem. If we could just spur our economy into gear with another war. Yes. That's the answer.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by wdkirk]

Well if the US government as a hole would just quit giving the money away to off shore interests.... and spend it at home on the people who paid for it...eeerr will pay for it...ummm did pay for it...


[edit on 3-8-2010 by Danbones]

and obama spending 4 trillion has nothing to do with anything? and continues to spend...................


i cant wait til november maybe the insanity will stop.


man it will be 2060 and bush will still get blamed.







[edit on 3-8-2010 by neo96]

To be expected. Obama is the tool of the day. The president is the targeted guy. Same as Bush. He's the figurehead that takes the hit. As for Congress, let's not be handling each others weenies just yet. It was a Republican Congress that began the wars du jour. Their both to blame. The He said/she said crap has gone on long enough.

Enough finger pointing. Someone have a solution?

reply to post by intrepid

I thought not giving the money away was a good start
I was bi partsan
ooooops, never mind, I am too late
Sorry, carry on.

Originally posted by Danbones
I thought not giving the money away was a good start

Stimulus packages are like a primer for a pump. It takes time to work. 2 years to be precise. I'm not saying that Obama's will work but the official results aren't in yet. If they come in he's a genius. If not a pariah.

I'm really not in a position to judge though. Canada came through this recession pretty unscathed because of our banking regulations.

I think its like crying over spilt milk to try and assign alotments of blame in this problem between these 2 corperate puppets.

The problem remains.

both men have screwed the pooch in my opinion, what good does it do us and how productive is it to try and assign % values to each man?

~meathead

reply to post by intrepid


Agreed on Canada
We also don't give much away, but we also don't have a huge tax base either.
the stimulus package south of the border didn't go where it was supposed to..it went off shore which was the basis of my comment.

I'm glad though I'm in Canada, and hopefully about to get some college through Second Career which looks to be good use to our stimulus money.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
lol wow bush is still getting blamed and he is not even TPOTUS. dang libs!

Yeah, it was way more fun when Bush was still in office and we could keep blaming Clinton!

People do understand that leaving office does not do away with policies right? Who would you like to blame for the Bush tax cuts no one can find a good excuse to keep that have burdened us with so much debt? Sorry but when Obama leaves office you will still get to blame him for things too. Presidents have lasting effects.

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae
Yeah, it was way more fun when Bush was still in office and we could keep blaming Clinton!

Oh c'mon. You've got to admit that Letterman was WAY funnier under Clinton than anyone else.

Originally posted by intrepid
Oh c'mon. You've got to admit that Letterman was WAY funnier under Clinton than anyone else.

I dunno, Bush gave EVERYONE a chance to be funny so I am torn. Besides that, I have a hard time deciding if I enjoyed a clever man like Lettermen using good material to be witty more than the fact that Palin can be quoted word for word and get as many laughs. Tough comedic times we are in. I am just confused as to why all 8 years of Bush's reign, I still had to listen to the Right wing blame Clinton for any and every problem they could but not even two years after Bush leaves office those same people want to pretend Bush was never even there.

If Obama like Truman his counterpart in the inexperienced president stakes knew how to get what we he wanted from Congress and he made some sound policy decisions , then he could well have set the dems on the path to a twenty year reign , like they had after FDR was elected . Instead Obama won't undertake the required nation building in Afghanistan and his so stimulus package is a fraud . Heck nation building in Afghanistan would both resolve that conflict and lower unemployment by two percent .

Originally posted by Adevoc Satanae

Originally posted by camaro68ss
lol wow bush is still getting blamed and he is not even TPOTUS. dang libs!

Yeah, it was way more fun when Bush was still in office and we could keep blaming Clinton!

People do understand that leaving office does not do away with policies right? Who would you like to blame for the Bush tax cuts no one can find a good excuse to keep that have burdened us with so much debt? Sorry but when Obama leaves office you will still get to blame him for things too. Presidents have lasting effects.

its not the tax cuts that made this large debt, its the mindless spending! Jan 1st 2011 is going to be the largest tax incress in the history of the USA. EVERYONES taxes is going up at lest 3% and when that date hits you can no longer clame your health care on your W-2 in turn meaning more taxes.

I make ok money $60,000 a year, im not rich. in 2011 im going to see $175 less in my check each month! im bearly making it as it is. think of everyone else that is worse off. this is going to take them over the edge into bankrupt

[edit on 4-8-2010 by camaro68ss]

reply to post by camaro68ss


Hey that sounds great. Tell you what. When you get some facts, come back and try again. If you think all I had were the Bush tax cuts, we can also talk about the unfunded wars. Do you know what that meant for Obama? Do you have any clue how unfunded wars impact the economy for FUTURE presidents? I have more. If you want we can even argue TARP since not one righty can agree on that. It was bad when Obama did it but good when Bush approved it, blah blah blah. You got your tax news wrong. Get facts. Try harder.

Ahem ...

This thread is about the changing perception by the voters as to who is to blame. That may not be the same as who is actually to blame, but it will have a profound effect on upcoming elections, and possibly result in obama being a so-called "lame duck" president only half way through his (likely at this point) only term in office.

Recall that usually the term "lame duck" refers to the final 3 months of a president's term, and not the final 2 years.