Obama gets "Poor" and "Fair" marks from economists

An AP poll of economists gives Obama "Fair" and "Poor" marks in the handling of the economy and most cite Mitt Romney as the best GOP candidate to handle the economy

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57349268/economists-obamas-policies-fair-or-poor/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/economists-obamas-policies-fair-poor-15247143

Thoughts? Do you agree or disagree with this poll? Do you think this will impact Obama's reelection chances and do you agree Romney is the best GOP candidate to handle the economy?

 

Among the Board of Directors of AP: Rupert Murdoch.

Enough said.


Romney is a silver-spoon rich boy who has spent his life living off Daddy's dime, whose most notable business "success" was mainly built on laying off lots and lots and lots of people.

If the fucking "economists," (who by and large have steered us into the whole mess of course) think that is a business model the President of the United States can pursue, they're out of their goddamn minds.

Virtually all the GOP candidates (and Obama too to some extent) operate on this same moronic premise: that governmental bodies should be operated in the same way as private businesses.

They are not the same thing at all and anybody with an IQ out of double digits realizes this fact, and ignores it only to promote other ideological or personal-profit-directed objectives.

It is an insult to actually-intelligent people, like, uhhm, me, to continually listen to this dimwit bullshit propaganda.

 

let me know how many of these board of economists had a clue seeing what was going to happen in 2008.

 

Some economists say the Obama administration didn't push hard enough for more government spending or tax cuts to stimulate growth. "They've generally tried to take the right kinds of measures but have often failed to lead with enough vigor to overcome political obstacles," said William Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services.

Others say the president tried to do too much, especially by pushing early for legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system instead of focusing on policies to promote growth and create jobs.

So the consensus is that he either did too little or too much, and they were either too strong or too weak, but all agree that nothing was done properly. At least they're on the same page.

Even Goldilocks eventually found "just right."

 

Not good but still a vast improvement from Bush's marks: "Dogshit" and "Fucking terrible."

 

Yeah, because playing with the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of government workers to be able to dig your political trench a few feet forward is a beautiful thing, the way it was with actual trench warfare in World War I. If we had more LBJs and Gerald Fords (at least in their Senate and House modes), and more Dirksens and Danforths and Mansfields, we wouldn't have government shutdowns. But it's a sad reality that statesmanship in Congress is dead.

 

I think the only difference between now and a year ago is that the blame is being split between Congress and Obama.

 

I don't know if "split" is the word I'd use.

Congress' approval rating is around 10 percent. Obama's approval rating is above water for the first time since the summer. I think people are noticing just how useless Congress has been since the Baggers took over.

 

Deny, deny, deny.

The conspiracy continues.

Sure it is. One side wants to drive the economy as far as possible into the shitter so they can hang it all on the other guy.

 

Not to mention "chrono-moronic" . . . and "Karl Rove's garden tool".

 

. . . not to mention that in recent decades, both sides of both aisles have largely been populated with self-serving whores.