Interesting Poll on US economy...

[adgal]

I saw this on CNN last night and was glad I could find it to post.  It's interesting and makes me really wonder what will happen come Nov.  It seems that the majority of Americans still hold the Republicans and George Bush responsible for the current economic situation.  Yet at the same time the majority do not approve of the job Obama is doing with it.  In my mind this makes the Nov. elections interesting...it sure doesn't sound like it's cut and dry to me.  I wonder what will happen.  Anyway, here is the article.....

81% rate U.S. economy as 'poor' - CNN poll
Faith Karimi, CNN newsdesk editorSeptember 5, 2010: 9:42 AM ET


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new national poll released Sunday indicates that eight in 10 Americans say that the economy is in poor shape, and the number that say conditions are very poor is on the upswing after steady declines through the spring.

And according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey, more people blame the Republicans over the Democrats for the country's economic problems.

    * 24
    *
    * 0diggsdigg

    * Email
    * Print
    * Comment

Eighty-one percent of the public rates the county's economic conditions as poor, with 18% describing the economy as good. Forty-four percent of people questioned describe economic conditions as very poor, up seven points from July.

The poll indicates that roughly half the country says that conditions have not improved in the past two years. The other half says that the economy has gotten better, but many of them expect things will get worse in the near future.
0:00 /37:05'Uncertainty' threatens U.S. economy

"Roughly a third of all Americans say that the economy has gotten better and will continue to do so," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But one in five say that things have gotten better but will take a turn for the worse in the months ahead -- essentially predicting the "double-dip" that many economists are worried about."

So which party gets the blame for the country's current economic problems?

According to the survey, more Americans hold the Republicans responsible than the Democrats, with 44% blaming the GOP and 35% picking the Democrats.

"And when George W. Bush's name is added to the mix, the number who blame the Republicans rises to 53%, with just a third saying that Barack Obama and his party are at fault. That indicates why the Democrats are likely to mention Bush's name every chance they get between now and election day," Holland said.
Happy Labor Day, workers!

But according to numbers released Friday, just four in 10 Americans say they approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing on the economy.

The 40% who give Obama a thumbs up is a new low for the president on the economy in CNN polling.

The CNN/Opinon Research Corp. poll was conducted Wednesday and Thursday, with 1,024 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

-- CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.  To top of page

[Sarajmt]

At least if Congress goes to the Republicans we can stop this out of control spending.

The small business owners will not invest in equipment or hire under the uncertainty in the economy that this administration has caused.  No one knows what to expect with the Obamacare.  They have no idea how much their taxes will go up.  And expenses under the cap and tax that Obama will back door in through the EPA if he has to.  Banks will not lend money and Big Business is just sitting on large cash reserves.  All because of this administration.  Keynesian economics do not work.  But even Keynes didn't approve of increased taxation under these circumstances.

You simply cannot tax and spend your way out of a recession/depression.  We need across the board tax cuts and less regulation.  The Feds need to get out of the way.

And big Corporations don't actually pay income tax.  Any increase in taxes is just passed right down to the consumer.  

[adgal]

A tad bit off topic, but still keeping with the general theme of this thread...they had analysts from both the Republican Camp and the Dems on Anderson Cooper last night. They were talking about how the two groups are so at odds with each other that if the Republicans get a majority in Nov. with a Dem President, nothing will ever get done.  Everything will be at a deadlock.  I'm telling you guys, that's what we have here and more time spent fighting then anything else.  Not good.

[flmagi]

Tax cuts accross the board will do much of nothing. It won't help the unemployed or under-employed. A tax break at the end of the year, doesn't do much for spending and paying bills on a daily basis for the middle or lower income people. And if they're not spending, businesses have no reason to hire more employees. The wealthy & corporations will just pocket their tax breaks. Tax breaks for the wealthy didn't create jobs during Bush's 8 years or  Obama's 2 yrs. that the Bush tax cuts have still been in effect.
Obama has stabilized the economy. It could have gotten a lot worse than it is. And Obama could have gotten a lot more done if the Republicans didn't block every thing.  Now, when all the Republicans take over the house, we'll  fall back to Bush times.
So hopefully you all LOVED Bush and what he did, because that's where we'll be headed again, come Nov.

[Sarajmt]

The only way to get the private sector moving is tax breaks and NO new spending.  Also Obamacare with all it's costs and regulations have put too much doubt in the minds of business owners to do hiring or expansion.  We need permanent tax breaks across the board.  The small business owners are the ones mostly affected by the $250,000 or over tax increase.  They DO NOT pay capital gains taxes. They need loans. Banks and businesses are not letting go of their money with so much economic uncertainty under Obama.  He is bad for business.




About Jobs:
Job Creation under Obama: Nothing to Crow About
By Cesar Conda & Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Posted on May 18, 2010 12:10 PM

Ron Brownstein makes an assertion in the new National Journal that has raised the spirits of Democrats going into the mid-term elections: “If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency.”

Brownstein reaches this fallacious conclusion in two ways. He projects a stream of overly generous job creation numbers — 290,000 per month — until December 2010. The economy rarely has job increases of that magnitude for nine months in a row. Then, Brownstein compounds the error by comparing net job creation in the Bush presidency (1.9 million) with what he thinks would be gross job creation in year 2010 of the Obama presidency (2.9 million).

The net figure of 1.9 million jobs created under President Bush includes recession years caused by the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000-2001 and by the September 11 attacks, as well as the bursting of the housing bubble in 2007. Although Congress passed Bush’s proposed tax cuts in June 2001, they were not designed to be fully implemented until 2003. As a result, job losses continued into 2002. In May of 2003, Congress enacted an additional round of tax cuts, which produced 46 months of uninterrupted job growth beginning in September of 2003, the second-longest streak on record.

To be fair and balanced, Brownstein should also use the net jobs created under President Obama — from January 2009 to December 2010. Using Brownstein’s assumption of 290,000 monthly jobs for the remainder of 2010, the net job loss since the start of January 2009 would be 1.8 million, the sum of 4.7 million lost jobs in 2009 and 2.9 million potential jobs created in 2010. Even under Brownstein’s generous assumptions, the economy would lose jobs during the Obama presidency during the period 2009 to 2010. That’s right, not only zero net new jobs, but a job loss of 1.8 million.

At 9.9 percent, unemployment is higher than in any of the Bush years (when unemployment peaked at 7.2 percent), even after Obama’s $787 billion stimulus program and other large spending bills. The administration’s 2011 budget forecasts that unemployment will stay near double-digit levels for the next two years, because labor-force participation is at 1986 levels; almost 2 million people are still on the sidelines waiting to come back into the labor force, raising the unemployment rate when they do. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 46 percent of the unemployed have now been out of work for 6 months or longer — the highest since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping records in 1948.

To be sure, the employment situation is gradually improving. But if Democrats think that they can crow about jobs going into the mid-terms, then they really are out of touch.

[adgal]

I found the poll interesting because it's clear most Americans are not happy with either party...at least not entirely.  I really wonder what the outcome of this election will be.  Personally, I think the dems haven't had enough time to really be completely effective and it sure sounds like they have some good ideas.

There was also a short segment on job creation, but I can't find an actual article to post.  It was on CNN last night as well.  They said that in the time Obama has been in office, more jobs have been created then the entire Bush years.  So yes, unemployment is till way to high, so it may not seem like progress, but it is happening...just slowly.  Anyway, I can't back that up, as I said I heard it on the news last night.  

[teko]

So without going to the CBO and reading the article in its entirity, a few observations. Irak war, okay, what about the afgan war? Now go back to the site and look up stimulis bill, as well as the afgan war and look at the pic as a whole. Quite a different pic eh? While you are at it show me the benefit of those tax cuts for the rich and see what the CBO is suggesting as well. You can also check out a site called National Priorities Project, have not researched that one, but came across it while surfing.

[Sarajmt]

Please see the graph on the website.  Very Telling.  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html


August 22, 2010
Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not
By Randall Hoven
The Iraq War ends this month. The last combat brigade left August 19. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began in 2003, will end August 31. September 1 marks the beginning of Operation New Dawn. Now that it's over, what did the Iraq War cost?

Here are examples of what some people had been saying about Iraq War costs.

    "It was under Mr Bush that the deficit spiralled out of control as we fought an unnecessary and endless $3,000bn war in Iraq..."
     - James Carville, the Financial Times.

    "The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home."
     - Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Washington Post.

    "First, the facts. Nearly the entire deficit for this year and those projected into the near and medium terms are the result of three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession. The solution to our fiscal situation is: end the wars..."
     - Christopher Hayes, The Nation.

The correct answer to my question, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is $709 billion. The Iraq War cost $709 billion. Why Carville, Bilmes, and Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz thought the answer was $3 trillion is anybody's guess. But what's a 323% error among friends?

The CBO breaks that cost down over the eight calendar years of 2003-2010. Below is a picture of federal deficits over those years with and without Iraq War spending.



Sources: CBO and U.S. Statistical Abstract (see below).

Just for grins, use the above chart to dissect Christopher Hayes' statement that our current and future deficits are caused by "three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession."

Two of those three things -- the wars and tax cuts -- were in effect from 2003 through 2007. Do you see alarming deficits or trends from 2003 through 2007 in the above chart? No. In fact, the trend through 2007 is shrinking deficits. What you see is a significant upward tick in 2008, and then an explosion in 2009. Now, what might have happened between 2007 and 2008, and then 2009?

Democrats taking over both houses of Congress, and then the presidency, was what happened. Republicans wrote the budgets for the fiscal years through 2007. Congressional Democrats wrote the budgets for FY 2008 and on. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus." (The $814 billion figure is from the same CBO report as the Iraq War costs. See sources at end of article.)

The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion.

No one will say that $709 billion is not a lot of money. But first, that was spread over eight years. Secondly, let's put that in some perspective. Below are some figures for those eight years, 2003 through 2010.

    * Total federal outlays: $22,296 billion.
    * Cumulative deficit: $4,731 billion.
    * Medicare spending: $2,932 billion.
    * Iraq War spending: $709 billion.
    * The Obama stimulus: $572 billion.


There is an important note to go along with that Obama stimulus number: the stimulus did not even start until 2009. By 2019, the CBO estimates the stimulus will have cost $814 billion.

If we look only at the Iraq War years in which Bush was President (2003-2008), spending on the war was $554B. Federal spending on education over that same time period was $574B.

So the following are facts, based on the government's own figures.

    * Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
    * Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
    * Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
    * Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
    * Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
    * The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
    * During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

I've written elsewhere that the Iraq War was totally justified and even executed reasonably well. But even if you believe otherwise, there is no reasonable case that can be made to say it caused grave economic woes then or now.

Not only do the critics of the Iraq War make 300% errors in their numbers, but they also contradict themselves with abandon. When Obama was pushing he stimulus, he said,

    Then you get the argument, "well this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill." Whaddya think a stimulus is? (Laughter.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)


So spending $572B in two years stimulates an economy, but spending $554B over six years ruins one?

Aren't these also the same folks who tell us how well JFK and LBJ ran the economy back in the roaring '60s? During the eight years of 1961-69, 46% of all federal spending was on national defense. During President Bush's eight years, defense spending did not even average 20% of federal outlays. Under JFK/LBJ, defense spending was 8%-9% of GDP. Under Bush, it was about 4%.

How did the economy do so well in the 1960s, and so badly in the 2000s, when less than half as much of our resources were devoted to defense in that more recent term?

The questions are rhetorical. Defense spending, and the Iraq War in particular, was not the cause of our economic problems. I don't care if you hear it from James Carville, Ron Paul, or a Nobel Prize-winning economist. It is a lie.

Randall Hoven is the creator of Graph of the Day. He can be contacted at randall.***@**** or via his website, randallhoven.com.

[Data sources: All data for 2009 and later are from the CBO's recent budget outlook (pdf here). For an accounting of Iraq war spending, see Box 1-3 of that report. For an accounting of stimulus spending, see Box 1-2 of that report. For summary federal budget numbers in 2009 and later, see Table 1 of that report.

Federal budget figures through 2008 are from the U.S. Statistical Abstract. See Table 457 for overall spending and deficit levels, Table 458 for debt levels, and Tables 459 and 461 for spending in specific categories.]

[brice1967]

I'm all for the Presidents plan to help the middle class.  Lets see what happens!

[brice1967]

I'm not for sure if I see any improvement on any front.  I felt pretty optimisitc when I heard all of our Presidents plans on how to change government.  As much change aw we were promised, politics as usual continue in our nations' capital.

I understand that some spending was necessary to get some of these things straightened out.  In fact, some of this was initiater while Bush was in office, but I was concerned then.  Now the presses are printing dollar bills faster than we can feed paper into them, our fiscal responsibility sux as bad or worse and there's no improvement on the horizon. We are pinned down to hirrible trade policies that were done 20-25 years ago....they arent benefitting our economy now, they are killing it.

I really think the change we were promised is not the change we are getting.  Again, until things change in D.C., things will remain the same.  I think all of government is in a tail spin, everyone is against everyone-unless you have a payment plan with a special interest group.

The newly proposed $50 billion is going to be covering things that were promised in the original tarp plan.... those were supposed to be shovel ready jobs, moneys been allocated and the work isnt done.  Don't get me wrong, we need our infrastructure and a lot of it is in numerous states of disrepair.  

I hope somebody else is watching this...The President just stepped on stage and everyone is acting like the Jerry Springer show....... what in the hell is the matter with our country?

Our President needs to do something to positively impact the economy.  As of yet, I am not seeing it.  Linda Solis (Labor Secretary) is patting herself on the back right now, (MSNBC) and there were about 1.9 million jobs lost since the first of the year..... Cripes...

[teko]

Well when you look at where we were 18 months ago, I would say things are better, and improving altho at a snails pace. But is improving. The pres is going to come out next week with a plan to boost the middle class and small business as well. We did not get here overnite and will not recover overnite. Realistically no matter who is at the helm, it could take years to get back to where we were before. But are americans patient people, no I do not think so, they want a quick fix and usually it is the sitting government that pays the price. But I am not counting on the GOP nearly as much as the media would have us believe either.