StressFree: The economy. It's a no brainer. If the economy was spectacular, he'd be praised as the greatest President ever...kinda like how Clinton was.
Or Reagan. Many people still think Reagan's voodoo economics "worked" just because they lived well during his term. But in fact Reagan started the insane deficit spending trend that led to the current depression.
RayfromUSA: Or Reagan. Many people still think Reagan's voodoo economics "worked" just because they lived well during his term. But in fact Reagan started the insane deficit spending trend that led to the current depression.
Good point. The only Republican President in my lifetime that was remembered well.
RayfromUSA: Or Reagan. Many people still think Reagan's voodoo economics "worked" just because they lived well during his term. But in fact Reagan started the insane deficit spending trend that led to the current depression.
Reagan and a Dem controlled House! Approved the Taxcuts,but wouldn't curb the spending!
Conrad73: Reagan and a Dem controlled House! Approved the Taxcuts,but wouldn't curb the spending!
Let's be honest Conrad. The greatest spending of the Reagan years was Reagan's star-wars defense boondoggle. The cost was enormous, it did nothing to help the nation and it set a precedent for defense spending that has never gone back down to pre-Reagan levels. It was total waste.
On the other hand, during Reagan's two terms, social spending WAS greatly reduced. But the defense industry and Reagan's various wars,(El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua,...) ate up every bit of the money saved.
The greatest benefits of the Reagan years went to drug traffickers. Especially those involved with the CIA's cocain imports that fueled the CRACK epidemic.
BlainX: Knee How- Hi in chineese Important Because Obummer is moving our economy there. I may be the first to Job interview there.
This was the Change, the Obummer's clan voted for...
It was inevitable. After decades of deficit spending the US economy was totally bankrupt and China held all the cards (and all the money). I don't think "voting" has any role at all anymore, except to keep up the illusion of democracy where none exists.
RayfromUSA: It was inevitable. After decades of deficit spending the US economy was totally bankrupt and China held all the cards (and all the money). I don't think "voting" has any role at all anymore, except to keep up the illusion of democracy where none exists.
In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars.
RayfromUSA: Let's be honest Conrad. The greatest spending of the Reagan years was Reagan's star-wars defense boondoggle. The cost was enormous, it did nothing to help the nation and it set a precedent for defense spending that has never gone back down to pre-Reagan levels. It was total waste.
On the other hand, during Reagan's two terms, social spending WAS greatly reduced. But the defense industry and Reagan's various wars,(El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua,...) ate up every bit of the money saved.
The greatest benefits of the Reagan years went to drug traffickers. Especially those involved with the CIA's cocain imports that fueled the CRACK epidemic.
Both parties were involved in all that.
I think you will find though, that tax revenues soared during the Reagan Era.
WhatUwish4: In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars.
And were are we now?
In the poorhouse.
Any "federal budget deficit" at all means a loss. And when the country is already dead broke and trillions of dollars in debt, a reduction of the deficit doesn't necessarily mean a healthier economy.
It's like saying that the bleeding of a gunshot victim is slowing down. It doesn't necessarily mean the victim's getting better.
well i say as a president, u cant be everybodys friend. u need to pick sides and make decisions based off what is best for the country. he hasent learned how to make the tough decisions yet so he's not really doing well as a president sadly. but i didnt vote for him so aint my fault he's here
One thing to consider is the role of the media in bringing down Obama's popularity.
The media is CFR controlled, just like Obama. And since the media is clearly not supporting Obama, it must mean that the loss of popularity is intentional.
I don't think the Wall Street banking community want a recovery, or a return of Obama's popularity. Apparently they will let the economy collapse and Obama will get the blame.
Nikitty20: well i say as a president, u cant be everybodys friend. u need to pick sides and make decisions based off what is best for the country. he hasent learned how to make the tough decisions yet so he's not really doing well as a president sadly. but i didnt vote for him so aint my fault he's here
Are you serious? You didn't vote for him? It might not be safe to post that!!!
WhatUwish4: In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars.
This country was messed up pretty good under dubbya, just goes to show you how impatient everyone is and how unrealistic some peoples expectations are. Obama can't wave a magic wand and make unemployement and the economy better in months. Look back in history at how long it took our country to climb out of the great depression, get real people.
When there is a conspiracy to socialize a nation, the best thing that can happen to generate support for it is an economic collapse.
When times are good, most people believe in capitalism and free enterprise.
But when times are bad, they tend toward wanting a social umbrella.
So all it takes to bring a nation under Communism is a disastrous economy and a front man who's good at lying. The former is easy to arrange by those who control the banks, and the latter is easy enough to find among politicians. Especially "community orgainizers".
A recent Gallup survey found that underemployed Americans were more likely to favor Obama, with 55 percent approving of his performance as opposed to the national average of 49 percent.
The survey also found that U.S. underemployment is considerably higher than the official government statistic. The Labor Department claims that 16.5 percent of American workers were either jobless or worked part-time for economic reasons in January against Gallup's survey findings of 19.9 percent.
The administrations strategy is to scuttle the economy but then minimize the severity of the situation.
The worse things get, the more people cling to the (empty) hope that the government will take care of them. Instant socialism.
RayfromUSA: I'm not sure that figure is reliable. A lot of blacks don't like Obama. But even supposing the figure is real, what was their alternative, ???McCain????
Supporting Obama was probably more a repudiation of Bush than anything else (for all voters). Nobody even knew who Obama was. His strongest appeal was that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush.
And that was planned.
That's why Bush played the idiot during his entire 2nd term. It was to set the stage for the "change" agenda that would socialize the nation.
The democrat vs republican paradigm is fake. The 2 parties work together to manipulate the public. It's like moving a heavy piece of furniture. You can't just pick it up and carry it. To get it where you want it to go, first you swing it to the left and then to the right moving it a little bit toward the objective with each swing.
Why do the "they" want socialize America Ray? What's the ultimate goal of this plan? Didn't the people vote for Obama because they wanted more elements of socialism since the system at that time was not working for middle class families?
StressFree: Why do the "they" want socialize America Ray? What's the ultimate goal of this plan? Didn't the people vote for Obama because they wanted more elements of socialism since the system at that time was not working for middle class families?
Being Californian,and living in Sweden is really working against you,SF!
StressFree: Why do the "they" want socialize America Ray? What's the ultimate goal of this plan? Didn't the people vote for Obama because they wanted more elements of socialism since the system at that time was not working for middle class families?
They wanted change, yes. But socialism? I don't think so.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Why has Obama's popularity fallen so fast?(Vote Below)
But Obama, without even trying, has lost most of his support in only 2 years.
Why do you think that is?