1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Gehrig, Dec 28, 2011.

  1. Gehrig

    Gehrig Active Member

    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



    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?
  2. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

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

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'd be more interested in who those 36 were, and what they were saying 2 and 3 years ago.

    Obama's approval ratings have been going up. It coincides with him doing. ... nothing.

    He came in and using his momentum and a friendly Congress, pushed through a lot of spending at a time our debt levels were entering a danger zone. At the same time, the economy stagnated. His approval ratings were low.

    The last year, he has backed off of that and has done very little, in part, because the House is controlled by a different party, and he gets fought on everything tooth and nail. It's kind of like when Bill Clinton lost Congress to the other party and through gridlock they balanced the budget -- they shut down the government, and voila, balanced budgets. Except in this case, the baseline is much worse, and the will to reign in spending is low from both parties, which revel in the corruption, so we are not going to get balanced budgets anytime soon.

    But all Obama has to do is sit back, do NOTHING, smile, and his approval ratings will go up, making him harder to beat. It's been his game plan, and it is actually kind of smart.

    Like every president, he only sucks when he is doing stuff/mucking things up -- which inevitably means making things worse.
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    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."
  6. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    Not good but still a vast improvement from Bush's marks: "Dogshit" and "Fucking terrible."
  7. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

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

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

    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.
  10. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

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

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

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

Share This Page