75% blame Bush's policies for deteriorating economy

[Sinister]

The figure includes large numbers of dissatisfied Republicans and represents a sharp increase in pessimism over the last year. Higher fuel prices have sharpened the criticism.

By Maura Reynolds, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 26, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Three out of four Americans, including large numbers of Republicans, blame President Bush's economic policies for making the country worse off during the last eight years, according to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll released Wednesday, reflecting a sharp increase in public pessimism during the last year.

Nine percent of respondents said the country's economic condition had improved since Bush became president, compared with 75% who said conditions had worsened. Among Republicans, 42% said the country was worse off, while 26% said it was about the same, and 22% thought economic conditions had improved.

Phillip Thies, a registered Republican and clothing-store owner in Cedar, Mich., who was one of those polled, said the president was doing an able job through the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks but "right after that, it was steadily, steadily downhill."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-poll26-2008jun26,1,6337327.story

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Doing an able job until 9/11? That's funny. What is that, eight months? lol

[pinky]

Nine percent of respondents said the country's economic condition had improved since Bush became president...Who are these people, and where have they been hiding?

[db44]

That would be the rich folk hiding with their money-stuffed pillow cases in Regis' basement.

[lions1mew]

Darn it Dave, I was gonna say that!! :p

[SparkleHugs]

yes, he was doing a fine job while on Vacation in those first months. Doing nothing when nothing big is happening is definately notable.

[ConnieB]

yes, he was doing a fine job while on Vacation in those first months. Doing nothing when nothing big is happening is definately notable.One thing different between Bush and Clinton. Clinton did NOTHING when something big was happening. Bush actually did something when something big happened.

I don't blame our president for where our nation is right now, but I do blame our congress as they have more power. For those who are blaming Bush..you need to refresh yourself on how our government works and who has more power because you are placing blame in the wrong direction. Don't rely on the media for your information..learn how our government is suppose to work and make your own judgements accordingly. Don't rely on polls either as it typically does not correctly represent a majority. 1200 people nationwide never represents a majority here in the USA.

Even though a president goes to his vacation home, he is not on vacation.... the only time he gets a vacation is when he's a FORMER president. Being president ages men quickly for a reason....

[pinky]

At least Bush is going on vacation in a few months!

[DoubleEdgeSword]

There were no terrorists connected to 9/11 in Iraq, Connie. Bush invaded a country for no reason at all.

This article is about the ECONOMY. Clinton left us with a surplus. Now, under Bush, we have a huge deficit, manily caused by the illegal war in Iraq.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I cannot believe that there are still people around like Connie who actually think that Iraq and 9/11 are connected. I'm just mystified...

[pinky]

Well, I just looked up the Iraqi Liberation Act, and here's part of what I found on Wikipedia:

This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime.Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated 7 groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act.(see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were (1) The Iraqi National Accord, (2) The Iraqi National Congress, (3) The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, (4) The Kurdistan Democratic Party, (5) The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, (6) The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and (7) The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (education and training of an army), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes,except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
Apparently, President Clinton DID act as he should have, in a timely fashion after this Act was passed and signed, and acted within the confines of the law, unlike his successor.

[db44]

Claire, after the way that quote came out, I never want to see you comment on any spelling or grammatical mistakes I make! :p

[LesterX]

One thing different between Bush and Clinton. Clinton did NOTHING when something big was happening. Bush actually did something when something big happened.

I don't blame our president for where our nation is right now, but I do blame our congress as they have more power. For those who are blaming Bush..you need to refresh yourself on how our government works and who has more power because you are placing blame in the wrong direction. Don't rely on the media for your information..learn how our government is suppose to work and make your own judgements accordingly. Don't rely on polls either as it typically does not correctly represent a majority. A poll of 500,000 people will not even come close to a majority of the USA's opinion.....

Even though a president goes to his vacation home, he is not on vacation.... the only time he gets a vacation is when he's a FORMER president.

I think the posters here are quite clear on how the government works, Connie. In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats do not have the votes needed to override Bush vetoes, hence their power is rather limited.

Oh, and you might want to learn a bit more about statistics before claiming that 500,000 people will not come close to a majority of the USA's opinion. If the polling is done correctly, it takes a heck of a lot fewer people than that to be representative. The comment is particularly amusing coming from you, since you constantly try to use your personal circle of family and friends as "evidence" to contradict the need for health care reform, etc. Talk about an unrepresentative sample...

[pinky]

Ah, but I fixed it, didn't I?

Apparently, I had hit the insert key without realizing it, so things were getting eliminated as I bolded and italicized.

[db44]

Now if we could just break you of the Brad Bold effect... :p

[pinky]

Just trying to make it possible for Connie to sort it out. ;)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Connie wears very narrow blinders. Mention Bush, she brings up Clinton. Mention anything and she brings up Iraq and 9/11 (although I see she's edited all of that out, now). Mention the economy and we get a lesson on how the government and polling works. She just loves those red herring arguments.

[db44]

Forget slavery and the 3/5ths votes, or descriminating against certain regions based on social or economic reasons. Can we start making it so only educated people vote?

And by educated, I mean people who have a basic understanding of logic, and can make decisions on their own. Not being spoon-fed by the proverbial wolves in sheeps clothing... Or in Rush's case, in whale's blubber.

*sigh*

[pinky]

Yeah, she DID edit, about 15 minutes after I proved her wrong about Clinton and the Iraqi Liberation Act.

Too bad nobody quoted her before she did it. But it really doesn't matter, because it's always the same tired old argument. And it's funny, she claimed Clinton did nothing with the Iraqi Liberation Act, even though he managed to follow its provisions in the middle of the witch hunt. :rolleyes:

[db44]

Once more, with feeling!

[LesterX]

Gee, how nice of Connie to edit her post so that my comment about 500,000 people not being a representative sample no longer makes sense.

[pinky]

Sure it does, because you quoted her in your post, before her edit! ;)

[LesterX]

Well, that's true. I guess we should all do that from now on so that Connie can't just edit her posts rather than admitting when she's wrong, which as we know will never happen. ;)

[db44]

And Claire wonders why I try not to edit... :p

[pinky]

Editing spelling is very different from editing stupid, disproven content. :p

[db44]

Can I go back and amend my amendment post? :p

[pinky]

You mean your "ammendment" post? :tongue:

Sure, go for it!