Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
December 20, 2014

Boehner Touts Poll, Says Obama ‘Can’t Blame Bush Anymore’

GOP Caucus 1 010814 445x274 Boehner Touts Poll, Says Obama Cant Blame Bush Anymore

(Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

House Speaker John A. Boehner is using a poll by veteran Republican pollster David Winston to whack President Barack Obama on the economy.

At the House Republican Conference’s weekly closed-door meeting, the Ohio Republican told his flock Winston had found that, as of November 2013, 49 percent of poll respondents believed the “policies of the present” were responsible for the troubled economy.

That’s up by five percentage points from right after the November 2012 elections, when Winston asked respondents the same question of whether past or present policies were to blame for unemployment, lack of job creation and the like.

“Barack Obama came into office blaming George W. Bush for the state of the economy and the lack of job creation. For years that ‘pass the buck’ strategy worked. But at the end of last year, a turning point was reached,” Boehner told his colleagues, according to a source in the room. “For the first time, a majority of Americans now say they believe the troubles in our economy are more the result of the policies of the present than the policies of the past.

“Since he can’t blame George W. Bush anymore, the president has chosen to talk about rising income inequality, unemployment and the need to extend emergency unemployment benefits,” Boehner reportedly continued.  “After five years in office, Barack Obama still doesn’t have an answer to the question: Where are the jobs?”

Of course, the White House has repeatedly said the economy would be much better off if Congress would avoid self-inflicted wounds like the shutdown and a series of debt limit crises and act on the president’s jobs proposals. When asked about polls, senior administration officials tend to point out that the president remains far more popular than the Congress.

Steven T. Dennis contributed to this report.

  • Cynthia Gurin

    The “policies of the present” are indeed responsible for the troubled economy. And you can lay that problem directly at the feet of John Boehner and the Republican dominated House of Representatives. The problem with such “polls” is not with the question they ask, which was structured to obtain the desired results, it’s with the remainder of the question that they deliberately refrain from asking. Which party is responsible for the “policies of the present”? The answer is overwhelmingly, GOP.

    • MrSmith

      Every time the Dems shut the government down to get more taxing, borrowing and spending from the Republicans, the Republicans folded.
      So, yes indeed, they do share the blame.
      I guess Obama can blame Bush until the media quits letting him. Which will never happen.

    • surfcat50

      Like the polls used to suggest Americans support 0bamacare?

      • bobman85

        Americans dont support obamacare, some people may like some parts of it but overall Americans hate the law. it makes insurance unaffordable for the working class.

  • Lucian Laurie

    Gee, a poll by a “Veteran Republican Pollster” that finds Obama responsible for all the worlds ills. There’s a shock. Has anyone condidered the two wars that have been fought while maintaining tax subsidies and tax cuts for the super-rich and coroporations. Could that be another reason for a huge deficit?

    • Cold Industry

      How many perpetrators of the financial crash has the Obama administration prosecuted? What legislation has Obama pushed to collect the taxes of mega corporations like Apple, GE or Starbucks, which have routinely avoided much (or even all) of their tax? It turns out Obama is just as bad as Bush when it comes to matters of taxation and wealth.

      • evrjack

        Not part of the 1 0/0 … is he?

      • S. Strengari

        Would have given you an up vote but he’s worse.

    • surfcat50

      Could it be huge spending increase against generally flat revenues?

      You must not be aware that a return to 2007 – level spending would balance the budget, the same spending level during those two wars.

    • Jake_Labrador

      The “super rich”?? Do you mean those folks who show up at Obama’s $40,000/plate fund raisers??? If Obama and you Libs hate the rich so much, why are they supporting him?? Maybe they know something you don’t, Lucian.

      • twopartysystem1

        Right on Jake. The wealthy own that dim bulb Chicago huckster. Low info voters just don’t want to belive it could be true. Not for Mr. Hope and Change!

    • bobman85

      We are spending more now then we where with bush, you know what is sad is after having been in office for 5 years and full control of both parts of Congress for 2 Obama couldnt fix the economy

    • LarryInParker

      Can you name a few of those tax subsidies and tax cuts for the super-rich and corporations that are not available to any taxpayer or business. Of course, those with little or no income or a business can’t use them. Think of where the low-income people will be if a flat tax is adopted or if the rich people where taxed into poverty.

      • twopartysystem1

        Lucian is just parroting.

  • OUTriker

    Let’s be real. Saying that the President scores higher in the polls the our national disgrace of a Congress (or the other way around for that matter) is very much like trying to make the arguement that with regard to human rights Stalin did a better job than Hitler.

    • Mygoodness

      According to Larry Sabato, the president has a built in 13-16% floor because of the minority vote. Take that away and he is stuck with the 23% that call themselves liberals.

    • evrjack

      I <3 this comment!

  • rokkitman

    LOL. 5 years into recovery from the Republican-induced economic collapse of 2008, the stock market is roaring, housing is up, unemployment is down and GDP has grown for umpteen consecutive quarters. Now a GOP push-poll claims the public doesn’t like the recovery. Desperation, thy name is Boehner.

    • Cold Industry

      The overwhelming majority of the wealth created during this recovery has gone to the richest 1% in the country. Obama has overseen enormous wealth inequality and stratification, doing little to nothing to fight against it. Well, I guess I don’t blame him for not taking on core constituencies; after all, he is allied to the wealthiest groups in the country: Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, universities and trial lawyers.

      Republicans are not much better, but let’s not pretend that the current growth, such as the QE driven stock bubble, has any real positive impact on the poor or middle class. Labor force participation is in the tank, and the new jobs are largely terrible, with both low pay and poor working conditions.

      • rokkitman

        Real wages in America haven’t increased since the 1970s. 30 years of voodoo economics took a terrible toll on the middle class. When Obama took office, he stopped the ongoing financial disaster he inherited from the GOP, and then took on the two most powerful, wasteful and corrupt industries in the USA – banking and health care. Sure, it would be nice if he was a magician and accomplished even more, but blaming the plight of the middle class on the guy who inherited a 30 year slide and spent his first 2 years just cleaning up the mess doesn’t seem too logical, does it?

        • Cold Industry

          I didn’t blame Obama for what came before him. I blamed him for not doing anything to stop or improve on it. Wealth inequality has gotten worse under his watch. Mega corporations–from Wall Street bankers to healthcare/big pharma–continue to operate largely as before.

          Where is the tax reform to stop mega corporations from paying little or no tax? Where are the prosecutions for bankers who perpetrated the financial crisis? Where is the tort reform to stop medical costs from rising so much? All we get from Obama are platitudes and speeches. He has no teeth.

          Instead, I get to read about him vacationing, living the million $ lifestyle. He simply does not care.

          • rokkitman

            Obama passed an $800 billion stimulus, passed health care reform, passed Wall Street reform, killed bin Laden, killed Gadaffi, secured over 30 Wall Street insider trading convictions, ended the war in Iraq, recapitalized the banks, repealed ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’, saved the auto industry, achieved some respect abroad for the US after the hated Bush foreign policy, brought Iran to the negotiating table, got chemical weapons out of Syria, has dragged over $15 billion in fines out of JP Morgan, and on and on. And you say he has no teeth? Your comment doesn’t pass the laugh test.

          • Cold Industry

            None of those were tough choices. Notice we were talking about the economy and wealth inequality. Look at your list. (You speak of laughable: 30 convictions for insider trading? Small fish.) It includes items about foreign policy, almost all of which are anemic or false anyway (Obama’s approval is just as bad as Bush’s in the Middle East–that’s what happens when you use drones to kill innocent children). You might as well have written 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0. That would have had the same effect.

            You haven’t answered any of my questions about tax reform, prosecutions of perpetrators of the financial crisis or tort reform, or my facts about income inequality. And you have abandoned your original argument, where you misread my entire post, assuming I was laying blame for the past on Obama. Your answers constitute red herrings built on reading comprehension failure. Please learn how to follow a logical argument before pulling the “you are ridiculous” card. Like most partisans, your posts consist of shaming tactics, not logical argumentation.

          • rokkitman

            Oh dear, your comments get even more absurd. “None of these were tough choices”? Seriously? You think anyone would buy that as a credible statement? Almost every accomplishment I mentioned was met with stiff Republican opposition. Obama was beaten routinely by Republicans and the press for his policy toward Gadaffi and Libya, which turned out to be exactly how to get rid of a dictator, and for his policy toward Syria, which turned out to be exactly how to get the chemical weapons out. How many dictators did Ronald Reagan expel or kill? If killing bin Laden was so easy, why didn’t GW Bush get it done in the 7 years he had to do it? If saving GM was so easy, why didn’t Bush do that? 30+ insider trading convictions is “small fish”? You’re the one complaining that Obama hasn’t convicted anyone from Wall Street. How many convictions did Bush achieve, or Reagan?

            As far as tax reform, how do you plan to reform taxes with a Republican House that will only allow tax reductions? You can’t answer that one, can you? As for income inequality, same question. Do you think the House will go for a big raise in the minimum wage? Easier union organization? Laws against job off-shoring? More funding for Pell Grants? Taxing hedge fund managers at income rates, not carried interest? Income inequality has been built up steadily, over a 30 year period, and won’t be reversed quickly. Suggesting that one president, saddled with a perpetually sandbagging Congress, could wave his magic wand and make it happen is the sort of fairy tale that only the truly naive buy into.

            You do a lot of name calling, but you haven’t mentioned much in the way of specific facts. Other than your ridiculous assertions about no tough choices and small fish, you haven’t even attempted to refute anything I’ve said. You’ve yet to make anything even vaguely resembling a logical argument. You’re pretty transparent, you know. You’re one of those people who love to proclaim that all politicians are bums. That sells well to your hipster peers… if you’re 14 years old. For adults, that overweening cynicism is just a show of intellectual laziness. You haven’t bothered to investigate the history and nuance of the past 30 years of American politics and economics, so you try to bluff your way through. Sorry, pal, your bluff has been called.

          • Cold Industry

            Okay, let’s go through your statements then. Class is now in session!

            “None of these were tough choices”? Seriously? You think anyone would buy that as a credible statement?

            Appeal to incredulity. Logical fallacy #1.

            Almost every accomplishment I mentioned was met with stiff Republican
            opposition.

            Non sequitur. Receiving opposition from
            the opposition party is no measure of economic toughness since: (a) it is
            expected in American politics; (b) Democrats enjoyed total control over the
            government for part of Obama’s presidency. Logical fallacy #2.

            Obama was beaten routinely by Republicans and the press for his policy
            toward Gadaffi and Libya, which turned out to be exactly how to get rid of a
            dictator, and for his policy toward Syria, which turned out to be exactly how
            to get the chemical weapons out.

            We were talking about tough choices for economic matters. Follow the bouncing ball. This is a red herring. Logical fallacy #3.

            And the fact that you have to appeal to (anemic and foolish) foreign policy choices shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is. You can’t argue the merits of his economic reform because, as you tacitly admit later appealing to obstructionism, he hasn’t passed any economic reforms.

            How many dictators did Ronald Reagan expel or kill?

            The foreign policy choices or failures of Reagan are irrelevant to judging Obama’s total economic incompetence. That’s a red herring. Logical fallacy #4.

            If saving GM was so easy, why didn’t Bush do that?

            Saving GM was a political move. Bush could have thrown bags of cash at a core constituency if he wanted. Oh wait, he did.

            But the actions of Bush are irrelevant to judging whether Obama has taken advantage of the opportunities he was given. Red herring. Logical fallacy #5.

            30+ insider trading convictions is “small fish”?

            Yes it is. Please learn basic information about how the SEC operates, who they prosecute and why the prosecute. They go after the small fish. Also research who is appointed to run it, and the relationship those appointments have to Wall Street insiders. They generally do not prosecute the ultra-wealthy or politically connected.
            And why would Obama do it anyway? He has many supporters in Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs.

            My father was a Wall Street CEO. We’ve had many conversations about how
            corrupt the system is. And even though
            he is a hard-core conservative, he actually likes Warren because she has been willing—unlike Obama—to go after the banks.

            For someone who thinks he has called my “bluff,” you offer up paper thin talking points that disintegrate on contact. You obviously have no working knowledge of the system. You can’t even offer up a comparison to whether thirty convictions is meaningful relative to the total attempted and historical mean.

            In any case, your response is just appeal to incredulity/ignorance. Logical fallacy #6.

            You’re the one complaining that Obama hasn’t convicted anyone from Wall Street. How many convictions did Bush achieve, or
            Reagan?

            Red herring again. All you’re doing is admitting Obama is as awful as Bush and Reagan were. I didn’t vote for either of them anyway—not that
            it is relevant. Logical fallacy #7.

            As far as tax reform, how do you plan to reform taxes with a Republican House that will only allow tax reductions? You can’t answer that one, can you?

            Obama had both the House and the Senate. Why didn’t he pass anything then? Republican obstructionism is time
            variable. It wasn’t always this way and
            doesn’t serve as an excuse now.

            Also, Obama has (or had, as is increasingly the case) the political capital to prosecute those who perpetrated the financial crisis. He did not use it.

            As for income inequality, same question.

            Same answer. Obama had his chance. He did nothing. That’s because he doesn’t care. He lives for his legacy, not for the poor. He is your typical limousine liberal.

            Income inequality has been built up steadily, over a 30 year period, and won’t be reversed quickly. Suggesting that one president, saddled with a perpetually sandbagging Congress, could wave his magic wand and make it happen, is the sort of fairy tale that only the truly naive buy into.

            Strawman. I never said he was responsible to overturn it completely. Rather, I said he has done nothing to help alleviate it given the opportunities he has had available to him. Either you deliberately misrepresented what I said or you are unable to properly represent it. Neither suggests you should be about on the Internet arguing about politics. That makes logical fallacy #8.

            You do a lot of name calling, but you haven’t mentioned much in the way of specific facts.

            I only get harsh when people are willfully obscurantist. When I mention specific facts, you dismiss them as beneath you. Then you complain I haven’t mentioned any facts.

            As for name-calling, you dish it out, but you can’t take it. If you really cared about logical argumentation you would address the arguments I’ve already made. You also wouldn’t make so many philosophy 101 errors.

            You haven’t bothered to investigate the history and nuance of the past
            30 years of American politics and economics, so you try to bluff your way
            through. Sorry, pal, your bluff has been called.

            You aren’t in a position to judge what I’ve studied based on what I’ve said here. That’s called a hasty generalization. Logical fallacy #9.

            You’ve yet to make anything even vaguely resembling a logical
            argument.

            Said by someone who obviously hasn’t studied logic, formally or informally. Sometimes I wonder why I bothered with university and graduate school at all, reading all that philosophy, when most people can’t even recognize an argument and think emotional extortion constitutes a reasonable evaluation of a political position.

            You’re pretty transparent, you know. You’re one of those people who love to proclaim that all politicians are bums.

            Actually, I don’t think they’re all terrible, just most of them and/or the incentives that the political system provides. Psychoanalysis is not your strong suit.

            That sells well to your hipster peers… if you’re 14 years old.

            Oh look, emotional extortion. Not even
            pretending to care about logic anymore, are you? At least the pretense is gone.

            Sorry, but I don’t get my sense of self worth from you, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t
            feel pressured to change my position because you think I’m childish.

            Ironically, you are acting just like the playground bullies from fifth grade. You can’t argue merits or make principle arguments, so you deflect, either to how allegedly poor other Presidents were or how allegedly childish I am.

            For adults, that overweening cynicism is just a show of intellectual laziness.

            Ironic, since emotional extortion is used by those who are unwilling or unable to forward principled arguments for policy positions. It’s middle school peer pressure all over again.

            You know, you remind me of fundamentalist Pentecostals. Your argument style seems to be name-it-and-claim-it. Tempting, since it skips all the hard work of actually knowing more than talking points.

            Well, I count nine fallacies. Take some notes and maybe you’ll improve for next time.

            Class dismissed.

          • rokkitman

            You’re articulate, and willing to try out your capabilities. Good for you. I thought you might recognize that you’ve lost the argument, but apparently not yet. Ok, one at a time.

            Appeal to incredulity. Logical fallacy #1.

            Nonsense. Your statement about tough choices is incredible, given the context. Obama secured over $800 billion in stimulus. He obtained a variety of otherwise unlikely-to-impossible legislation in the lame duck session of 2010 after a huge Republican election win, by making a highly criticized deal to extend tax cuts. He recapitalized that banks over strenuous opposition from his own party. All these were tough choices by the definition of any reasonable person. Your comments offer no definition of what a ‘tough choice’ would be, nor any examples of tough choices made by other presidents. You’re not even making an argument; you’re simply offering unsupported denial.

            Non sequitur. Receiving opposition from the opposition party is no measure of economic toughness since: (a) it is expected in American politics; (b) Democrats enjoyed total control over the government for part of Obama’s presidency. Logical fallacy #2.

            Apparently you don’t understand what non sequitur means, but at least you spelled it right. Republicans in the current Congress have set new records in attempting to derail Obama’s programs in almost all areas – new records for least legislation passed, new records for most judicial nominations stalled without hearings, new records for filibusters, etc. Suggesting this stuff is politics as usual demonstrates your lack of understanding of the context in which Obama works. During the 2 years in which Democrats controlled the House, the stimulus was passed, health care reform was passed, financial reform was passed, etc – all programs with significant economic impact. Again, you provide no supporting argument for your opposition to these facts, but simply unsupported denial.

            We were talking about tough choices for economic matters. Follow the bouncing ball. This is a red herring. Logical fallacy #3.

            No, we were talking about tough choices that Obama has made. Yours is the sort of redirect people often attempt when they see they are losing arguments. While you’re digging through Wikipedia to find logical fallacies, check out ‘continuum fallacy’ and ‘moving the goalposts.’ That’s what you did here. Nice try, though.

            The foreign policy choices or failures of Reagan are irrelevant to judging Obama’s total economic incompetence. That’s a red herring. Logical fallacy #4.

            Another continuum fallacy, not to mention your totally unsupported and wildly exaggerated “total economic incompetence” canard. You’re getting pretty nervous right about now, apparently.

            Saving GM was a political move. Bush could have thrown bags of cash at a core constituency if he wanted. Oh wait, he did. But the actions of Bush are irrelevant to judging whether Obama has taken advantage of the opportunities he was given. Red herring. Logical fallacy #5.

            The ‘political move’ assertion comes right out of the Romney playbook. It didn’t work for Mitt, either. Obama saved a major American industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yes, some bond holders wound up with fewer pennies on the dollar than they’d hoped. That’s one reason it was a tough choice – Obama made it and a powerful constituency got hurt. Your ‘red herring’ claim typifies your entire style of confrontation (you’re not actually making real arguments, you know). You make a claim and provide no support for it.

            (regarding 30 insider trading convictions as “small fish”) Yes it is. Please learn basic information about how the SEC operates, who they prosecute and why the prosecute. They go after the small fish. Also research who is appointed to run it, and the relationship those appointments have to Wall Street insiders. They generally do not prosecute the ultra-wealthy or politically connected.

            And why would Obama do it anyway? He has many supporters in Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs.

            Raj Rajaratnam, convicted of insider trading in 2011, was the 236th wealthiest American when he was arrested in 2009. Stevie Cohen, whose senior staff has one by one been convicted, and who just lost his right to operate a Wall Street hedge fund, is currently the 35th richest man in America, with a net worth of almost $10 billion, even after paying substantial penalties.

            But your ignorance of who has been prosecuted is just the appetizer.

            The delightful main course is your appeal to, um, authority:

            My father was a Wall Street CEO.

            Right. You’re sure he’s not the Pope? Many of your claims are laughable, but this one really demonstrates that you’ve been winging it all along the way.

            My best guess is that you are about 14 or 15, maybe even 17 or 18, basically pretty smart, and trying to mix it up with the big kids, but without the background to back up your bluster. A bit of friendly advice: know when you’re beaten and learn from the experience.

            So long, kid.

          • Cold Industry

            Nonsense. Your statement about tough choices is incredible, given the context. Obama secured over $800 billion in stimulus.

            How was that a tough choice? Sending billions to core constituencies is not a tough choice. I don’t think you know how the money was appropriated.

            All these were tough choices by the definition of any reasonable person.

            Name it and claim it, man. Don’t bother demonstrating why it was tough and which key constituencies he went against to make those choices.

            Also, “reasonable person” tends to reduce to “what I find reasonable.” (Sorry to go postmodern on you, but postmodernist philosophy does have its uses.)

            Your comments offer no definition of what a ‘tough choice’ would be, nor any examples of tough choices made by other presidents. You’re not even making an argument; you’re simply offering unsupported denial.

            I gave substance to the term tough in reference to core constituencies, which I explicitly defined and then attached to the argument. Here are the premises, since you are incapable of getting over your pride and using your intellect:

            P1. Obama has presided over enormous wealth inequality.

            P2. Obama had several opportunities to take on economic policies that would have helped alleviate this wealth inequality.

            P3. Obama has not taken those opportunities because it they go against core constituencies or are generally unpopular.

            P4. Presidents who fail to take on core constituencies to tackle income inequality are weak and ineffective.

            P5. Obama has not fought for legislation that takes on core constituencies.

            C. Therefore, Obama is weak and ineffective on economic policy.

            Now that I’ve spelled it out for you, perhaps you’d be willing to actually disagree with either the premises or the reasoning to the conclusion.

            By the way, we are here because, if you recall, you continued to equivocate (sorry, I know, you don’t like logic terms) and relate tough to foreign policy choices. Should I take your recent change to focus on economic facts as a tacit admission that this was illogical?

            Apparently you don’t understand what non sequitur means, but at least you spelled it right.

            You give no evidence I don’t understand it. I explained why what you wrote doesn’t relate or follow. All you can do is deflect to Republicans. And I’ve already addressed even that talking point. Try again.

            During the 2 years in which Democrats controlled the House, the stimulus was passed, health care reform was passed, financial reform was passed, etc – all programs with significant economic impact.

            None of which have helped reduce income inequality and all of which have enriched powerful corporations and the ultra wealthy. Even the financial reforms are ambiguous, at best, and have already been negated by creative lawyers and accountants or a shifting of financial resources to more profitable or stable sectors. The banking industry remains largely as corrupt as before. Indeed, what do you think QE is all about? And why do you continue to fail to address it, even though it was in my original response?

            No, we were talking about tough choices that Obama has made.

            The entire context of this thread and the initial point I made was about Obama’s lack of difficult economic policy choices. You’re the one who keeps trying to change the subject to any and all legislation or actions. That’s either because you know he hasn’t done anything significant or, more likely now, you simply misread what I wrote and don’t have the character to admit it and move on.

            While you’re digging through Wikipedia to find logical fallacies, check out ‘continuum fallacy’ and ‘moving the goalposts.’ That’s what you did here. Nice try, though.

            Remember when I referenced Copi and Cohen? That’s a standard university logic textbook. I have it sitting on my shelf behind me. I don’t read Wikipedia. Also, you can try Peter Geach. His information on ad hominem is particularly insightful.

            Another continuum fallacy, not to mention your totally unsupported and wildly exaggerated “total economic incompetence” canard. You’re getting pretty nervous right about now, apparently.

            No, you wish I was nervous, because that’s the only way you know how to interact with people online–pushing them into a posture of submission.

            So how is it a continuum fallacy? I explained why you were making fallacies. This isn’t atheist debate club where you just slap a fallacy label on everything you don’t like and pretend you’re smarter than everyone else. At least try to explain how it is a continuum fallacy. That’s the least you could do since you haven’t even bothered to address the red herring charge. How are the failures of Reagan’s foreign policy relevant at all to whether Obama has made tough economic policy choices, the kind that help alleviate income inequality?

            That’s one reason it was a tough choice – Obama made it and a powerful constituency got hurt.

            Since when were GM bondholders anything but ignored or reviled? I didn’t realize GM bondholders were a core constituency of Obama and that GM bondholders were a powerful constituency.

            The ‘political move’ assertion comes right out of the Romney playbook. It didn’t work for Mitt, either.

            Because Mitt used it (an assertion seeking an argument), therefore, it is ineffective? That is textbook fallacious. Guilt by association? Begging the question?

            But your ignorance of who has been prosecuted is just the appetizer.

            Um, I didn’t discuss the details of who was prosecuted because I already knew that they were small fish. The prosecution of 30 people in an industry filled with corruption is hardly evidence that Obama makes tough economic policy choices. Those 30 have very little influence over the gross income inequality in this country, and their going to jail isn’t going to change income inequality. It’s always easy to chip at the periphery, and it makes for good optics, since people don’t understand economics anymore. What’s harder is something, like, oh, I don’t know, maybe something I’ve mentioned many, many times, something like taking corporations like Apple and GE to task for paying little to no tax or taking on the trial lawyers and giving tort reform. But I labor in vain. You are obviously not interested in facts that show Obama to be the incompetent hack that he is.

            The delightful main course is your appeal to, um, authority: Right. You’re sure he’s not the Pope? Many of your claims are laughable, but this one really demonstrates that you’ve been winging it all along the way.

            My reference to personal experience and knowledge of those who have worked on Wall Street (which includes more than my father, by the way) wasn’t an appeal to authority. I didn’t base the logical validity of my arguments on that information (which would then constitute a fallacy), but used it to respond to your fallacious appeal to incredulity. Basically, evidence that I am informed as to the particulars of the industry because I know someone who used to work in it and was immersed in all its details.

            As for the rest, I’m an adult with children, and, as I’ve already said, gone through university and graduate school. That’s where I learned to be “articulate”–that and copious amounts of reading on abstruse subjects. But who cares about taking classes on European history and philosophy and critical thinking or studying economics or political history when people like you dismiss anyone who disagrees with their positions as little children?

            You need to get over your pride and learn to argue particulars in a logical way, without deflecting blame by pointing out how awful the other side is. You also need to learn how to read what other people are writing, such as not claiming (as you did) that I expected Obama to fix all economic inequality. Admitting error if the first step to knowledge. If you treat every challenge as a pissing contest, that will simply make you look like a fool–and I should know, I used to argue like you did back when I actually was a teenager. And I got the intellectual spanking I richly deserved.

            Look up informal fallacies if you’d like something simpler (and prefer to avoid funding a university professor’s Hawaiian property). They’re easier than formal logic, but they are more than sufficient for discussion boards. But, really, at heart it’s a pride problem. Don’t be so invested in what others think of you and don’t approach every political conversation as a means by which you prove your value over someone else. I’ve tried that too–and it is sand to the soul.

      • tpaine1

        It’s what always happens under socialism along with high unemployment and intergenerational poverty.

    • John Ramsey

      The crash occurred when the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. During that 4 year reign of error (the last 2 with the presidency as well) unemployment went from 4.6% to over 9%. Since the Republicans took back the House, unemployment has dropped to less than 7%.

      • rokkitman

        Oh, please. The financial collapse started in 2006 with the housing market crash, after 6 straight years of GOP total control of the gov’t – House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court. This was the first time we let Republicans control the whole deal for that long since the Great Depression, with similar results. Next came the CDO market collapse in early 2007, which ultimately precipitated the collapse and sale of Bear Stearns in March of 2008. Trying to pin this on Democrats, who didn’t have veto override power until 2009, demonstrates utter cluelessness about both financial markets and political history.

        • Ryno Lascavio

          There is NO doubt Bush was partially to blame for the crash with his “no veto” policy as President. But only a fool cannot see the connection between Democrats taking over Congress and the housing bubble. I have been in Real Estate for 20 years and all of us saw it coming. We watched as Bush AND Congress did nothing to correct a problem that was bound to explode, but when the Democrats gained control of Congress there was no way to convince them that many minorities and poor whites who did not qualify for homes were going to be told “NO”. Democrats could care less about how our economy crashes. All they care about is staying in power.

          • rokkitman

            By the time the Democrats took control of Congress, the train was already off the tracks. The vicious cycle that results in financial collapse does not stop just because you deny credit to poor risks. The massive leverage on which the big banks built their house of cards had to be completely wrung out of the system before economic reconstruction could take effect. As in the 1930s, after the last Republican fiasco, we’re now in a long, slow rebuilding process. Much remains to be done, but forcing the big banks toward responsible capital practices was job one. The Democrats have made serious moves in that direction, although the big banks and their Republican allies have fought reform every step of the way.

          • tpaine1

            And who forced these loans on the banks – the MOST regulated industry in America since the Depression?? Why I do believe it was Fannie and Freddie created and headed by DEMOCRATS – one of them Barney Frank’s lover!!!
            Nice try – just another BIG LIE.

        • tpaine1

          Guess the Energy Crisis of ’07 with gas prices doubling had NOTHING to do with the economic collapse?? More Democrat BIG LIES.

    • S. Strengari

      Yeah it was evil Republicans who pushed the Community Reinvestment Act which led to this crash! LOL, here’s sip on some more of this Kool Aid you look parched from blowing hot air.

      • rokkitman

        The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. You’re saying that suddenly, 30 years later, its evil effects kicked in? Sorry, you don’t pass the laugh test. But thanks for playing.

        • Cold Industry

          You obviously don’t understand the financial crisis if you don’t understand how the CRA contributed to the crash. The original legislation was “strengthened” in the 90′s, and the economic downstream effects of poor legislation can take a long time to appear.

          Where do you get your information? The Huffington Post? Your post almost “demonstrates utter cluelessness about both financial markets and political history.”

          Half the reason politicians like Obama and Bush can get away with awful legislation is because partisan dupes like you can’t be bothered to understand long term consequences. So after Obama has squished you and me and left the White House, he’ll go off on the million $ book and speech tour, never to be bothered by whether or not his legislation actually had any lasting, positive effects.

          • rokkitman

            Since you present zero evidence to support your claims, I’ll assume you’re mainlining Fox Nooz 24/7. That explains your ignorance, but it doesn’t excuse it. Politics is the art of getting things done. “Awful” legislation is what can be dragged through a Congress of competing interests, as if you had a clue about that.

            As I’ve told you, Obama’s list of accomplishments, foreign and domestic, is long and significant. I notice you haven’t tried to rebut that. That Obama will doubtless go on a book tour (the one and only thing you got right) is simply a perquisite of office. If you wish to make book tours illegal, I wish you the very best of luck in pushing that legislation through this Congress. It’s as unrealistic as the rest of your comments.

          • Cold Industry

            I don’t watch Fox News (I think the channel is fairly awful, minus the marginally acceptable Special Report), so try less assuming and more logical argumentation. (Hint: whether I watch Fox News is actually irrelevant to whether an argument is correct; Media Matters watches Fox News, does that make their arguments necessarily false? No.) As for the rest of your post, like so many partisans, you’re all bark and no bite.

            None of the facts I raised are controversial. Has income inequality increased under Obama? Yes. Has Obama failed to prosecute anyone who perpetrated the financial crisis? Yes. Do mega corporations continue to pay low or zero tax? Yes. Has Obama avoided any tort reform? Yes. You can add to the list.

            This applies to the CRA too. Please just do a basic Google search to read up on how the law has progressed and how it influenced the crash. It wasn’t the only component, obviously, but it was a large one, despite your knee-jerk statement that something passed so long ago couldn’t have affected what happened recently (you’d think just taking two minutes to reflect on the problem of modern entitlements–legislation passed a long time ago that is negatively affecting us today, because of longer life expectancy and changing demographics–would disabuse you of that notion). If you weren’t the kind of partisan that lets people like Bush and Obama get away with terrible legislation, maybe you’d have the character and discipline to go and research whether someone is making a useful point, rather than dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as stupid and irrelevant. You’re just as bad as the Team Red cheerleaders who thought anyone who opposed the Patriot Act wasn’t a patriot or didn’t care about national security.

            And, yes, I did rebut some of your list, but it wasn’t necessary to rebut all of it, as I already explained, because much of that list is irrelevant to the economic point I was making, which you still haven’t addressed or responded to. Please take the time to read and understand what others write.

            Also, the point about the book tour is not to make it illegal (what?), but to point out that Obama is just another 1%er who doesn’t care about serious policy changes. He’s just another selfish politician.

            You need to learn how to make an argument, then maybe you can earn the right to “laugh” at other people’s posts. Maybe you can start with Copi & Cohen; it’s a good primer on logic.

    • tpaine1

      What world are you living in. We have the most Americans EVER unemployed, in poverty and on welfare thanks to the Democrats BIG LIE and never ending trillion dollar deficits.

  • Mondovibe

    Watching the votes (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/bills_res.html) proves the Republican’s role in record obstruction to healing from the last few decades of neoconned socio eco economics that deregged to hemorrhage our economy, tax base and environment…Baby Bush’s shoot from the hip ‘mission accomplished’ compounded w/tax breaks was the nail on our coffin. GDP & jobs are up since the crashing house of cards Obama stepped into…imagine where we could be if Republican’s helped!

    • Cold Industry

      What specific bills should have been passed to make the economy better?

      • evrjack

        No more multi-million $$ ‘BirthdayPresents’ paid for by you n me (Mrs in Hawaii) Pay cuts for ALL congress now that they’re all deemed millionaires. + they too be on obamakare. A complete and total public ban and ignorance of the Constitution, Bill of Rights AND ALL AMENDMENTS!!

        • LDRider

          Mondovibe…
          Nice post full of jargon; doesn’t say much, other than you can’t write a coherent post. So, Cold Industry’s question still stands… what *specific* bills should have been passed to ameliorate the economic problems?
          Evrjack…
          Only Congress can change the pay of Congress. Only Congress can mandate Congress enroll in Obamacare. The Supreme Court has ruled that literacy tests as a qualification to vote are unconstitutional. Declaring a ban on ignorance is a violation of both the first amendment and common sense.

          • evrjack

            Of course only Congress can controls their own money. After all, the Federal Gov works FOR us, not US for them. (LOL)
            However, the Obama Admin are the biggest $$ spenders in U.S. history. When first crowned Pres he had Dem House & Dem Senate. Dems had more than enough time to turn the economy around; enough time and enough money
            Sure…economy doing GREAT! Is that why SocSec bennies were 1.5 0/0 and military raises 1 0/0 because everyone’s got a job? Oh and don’t forget.. 11+million (by Dems count) oxymoron of “undocumented citizens” which is more like 50 mill, each of whom must be fed ($) housed ($) and clothed ($) all with subsidies.

          • Mondovibe

            I highly recommend “We the People” take personal responsibility to follow the bills & votes & more ‘away from the fog of controversy’/faux phone hacked news” thomas.loc.gov/home/rollcallvotes.html, CSPAN, etc. before forming opinions but if you need a quick reference to “Irrefutable Proof That The GOP Doesn’t Care About Helping The American People” http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/16/more-bill-republicans-blocked/

          • Layla

            You are going to LOVE the 2014 election! The American people are going to decide who gets to stay in Congress!!!

          • evrjack

            Too bad for you. You must be very lonely.

      • S. Strengari

        You know the usual pro-growth policies…..raised minimum wage, extended unemployment benefits, policies that make it cost prohibitive for employers to expand, increasing the social safety net. Yeah those food stamps and unemployment benefits sure are more attractive/ buy more than a middle class job and the dignity that comes with it!

    • Jake_Labrador

      The top 10% of the tax payers pay 70% of the taxes.
      The democrats always needed a scapegoat. It used to be the blacks, today it is “the rich”

      • tpaine1

        Democrats have always been about race and hate so they could steal.

    • tpaine1

      Democrats have ALWAYS been about hate and stealing. First, it was Jackson and the “Indian Wars” so they could steal the red man’s land then it was slavery so they could steal the black man’s labor. Now, it’s “hate whitey” so you can steal his money.
      The ObamaCon Tax is a PERFECT example.

      • Mondovibe

        Both parties killed Indians and had slaves. There was a time we had Progressive Republicans & Dixie Dems…you need some historical perspectives…parties change.

        • tpaine1

          REALLY?? The Party formed to abolish slavery had slaves?? REALLY??
          Do you even know when the GOP was founded?? How about half a century AFTER the Indian Wars.
          Classic “know nothing” Democrat.

          • Mondovibe

            Reality isn’t as airbrushed as your history books.

    • Mondovibe

      I highly recommend “We the People” take personal responsibility to follow the bills & votes & more ‘away from the fog of controversy’/faux phone hacked news” via thomas.loc.gov/home/rollcallvotes.html, CSPAN, etc. before forming opinions but if you need a quick reference to “Irrefutable Proof That The GOP Doesn’t Care About Helping The American People” http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/16/more-bill-republicans-blocked/

  • A.F. Meincke

    The( Republican Tea Party) is to blame with their control of the U.S. House of Representatives

    • http://www.roulettestrategytowin.com/ WhatMightBe

      liar………

    • rinehart

      You lie like Obama. Do you eat flies like Obama?

      • tpaine1

        Thought it was dogs??

    • Katherine

      So what you’re saying is that this president and this Senate combined can’t do ANYTHING unless they hold all the branches? I wonder how all those past administrations ever got anything done without holding WH, Senate and the House?

      No, Harry Reid is the bottleneck to getting anything done.

    • tess

      fool – you are actually saying that the senate and the president of the united states of america are powerless against ONE body?!?!?!?!

      • Mondovibe

        Here’s just a short list from 2011 of Con’s record obstruction: http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers I highly recommend “We the People” take personal responsibility to follow the bills & votes & more w/historical perspectives ‘away from the fog of controversy’/faux phone hacked news”thomas.loc.gov/home/rollcallvo…, CSPAN, etc. before forming opinions.

    • S. Strengari

      Boehner and Cantor are no “Tea Party” types as much as you would like to label them with that. Your guys hate them, we hate them, hence the insanely low Congressional Approval Rate. LOL unlike you lemmings we are comfortable saying that our leadership sucks. You on the other hand, march blindly and deny reality. Forward!

    • Layla

      You like “Tea” do you? Good, because you are going to be seeing a LOT MORE OF IT!

  • Mygoodness

    So we have fixed blame, now will someone step forward with a plan to fix this mess. It sure isn’t the current one that has discouraged people from working, thrown free stuff at people and taxed the few that are still working.

    • twopartysystem1

      Obama understands corrupt, one-party Chicago politics – that is all he has on his resume. He doesn’t know how to spell capitalism.

      • Mygoodness

        Unfortunately for the country, you are correct.

  • evrjack

    Don’t you people ever think in terms of the Future instead of the Past? What/Who will the NEXT president be bashing? What kind of jobless economy and national debt will THAT person face? MUCH MUCH MORE than obama has in his worse nightmares!!

  • http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PerryLogan Perry Logan

    I don’t see why not. Bush-Cheney were still blaming Bill Clinton for their screw-ups during their eighth year in office. I remember it quite clearly. If they can do it, we can do it.

    • http://www.roulettestrategytowin.com/ WhatMightBe

      liar – how about a link…………

    • rinehart

      liar

    • blaze68

      Thanks funny because I do not remember Bush blaming Clinton one time for the state of the economy.

      • S. Strengari

        Not a big fan of the Bush’s either but at least he had class. Let’s see if Obama can show respect to the next president, especially if they are a Republican, like Bush has shown Obama courtesy.

    • Ryno Lascavio

      I cant remember anything about that.

    • LarryInParker

      I don’t remember Bush or Cheney badmouthing or blaming past presidents for any problems during the Bush Administration. Pundits and party hacks did but Bush had too much class to play those games.

    • tpaine1

      Source please. What is it about Democrats and compulsive lying??

  • lyon volk

    Obama has conned the country twice. And that is for winning both elections. The question is What are we going to do about it?
    Con me once shame on you, con me twice shame on me…

    • LarryInParker

      Obama conned the country once. We conned ourselves the second time. Lets see if the masses learn anything.

      • twopartysystem1

        The second election was stolen with gov’t intimidation and blatant policy lies. We have an impostor squatting in the WH right now.

  • http://www.roulettestrategytowin.com/ WhatMightBe

    Obama is a serial liar – of course he’s going to lie and blame Bush – still……

  • jkk1943

    Obama is a mess. Why this nation tolerates his childish behavior is beyond me. Most Americans would take away their kids driving privileges if they refused to accept accountability and always blamed others for their problems.

    • tess

      mess ??? that is an extremely mild word to describe the most horrible man EVER to inhabit washington – and that’s saying a mouthful!!!

    • twopartysystem1

      He’s Mr. Never-Had-a-Job!

  • Mygoodness

    The media will continue to let him blame Bush, they have already spent more time on a bridge in New Jersey than on the IRS scandal and Benghazi combined. I haven’t heard a word from the network on the fact that an Obama supporter who gave him 6,000 dollars is in charge of the IRS investigation.

    • Mondovibe
      • Cold Industry

        Everyone knows Fox News is biased. If the mainstream media wants to hold its mantle of “objective” journalism, then it needs to do more than just say “oh, look, the other side has terribly journalistic standards too.”

        • Mygoodness

          I noticed yesterday that Fox was covering something O’Reilly said as news, I was appalled. I usually watch special report on Fox and occasionally Meagan Kelly but as far as I am concerned O’Reilly and Hannity are the Rights version of Matthews and Maddow

          • Cold Industry

            Special Report is the only show I find worth watching. And I agree with the comparison between Matthews and Maddow!

  • GMI Man

    I’m a conservative Republican but John Boehner is an idiot! I’m sick and tired of the RINOs speaking when they are the minority in the country. Republicans need to clean house in who represents the party in 2014. Boehner will still win in his liberal state but he should not be the Republican leader. We need real leadership with courage and strength!

    • bm124

      Ohio is a bellwether state, politically just like the country, maybe 1-2% more Republican in fact. The reason Republicans lose so much is people like you don’t even know basic political facts, and you shoot yourself in the butt. And the big Republican donors have taken a big step back from funding general-election candidates because people like you sabotage the primaries, letting Democrats win, with the result that Republicans are now outspent.

      By all means, run the liberals out of the party, and by all means, there used to be quite a few, the Chafees and Jeffordses and the like, that undermined from within. And the people that used to control the Kansas state senate. But most of them are long-gone now. Looking for RINO’s that doesn’t exist will only result in a witchhunt against your own people and a humiliating defeat. You don’t need the liberals, but you do need some moderates, and all the conservatives.

      • tpaine1

        The American Democrat media WANTS a inter-Party battle in the GOP. We need to refocus the American public’s mind back to the economy – worse it’s been since Carter – and the ObamaCon Tax with the worse yet to come – the employer mandate.
        Let’s support whoever wins in the GOP primary.

    • twopartysystem1

      You will never get it from the corrupt two-party monopoly. Decades of noncompetitve elections have gotten us here. Neither party will ever stop deficit spending to try and stay in power. They are fine with unborn grandkids paying for their marble and mahogany now. Stop voting republicrat if you want any change.

      • Layla

        If Boehner supports amnesty, I’m going to be voting Independent.

        • twopartysystem1

          I’m with you. I feel it is my duty to vote third party and give them some numbers. Blindly voting republican because you hate democrats and vice-verse is what has gotten us the literal trash that fills the cesspool we have for congress. The polarizing effect of keeping elections to two choices is what republi-crats thrive on. A race to the bottom.

  • factsobill

    Obama, Reid and Holder are The Three Stooges to Boehner and McConnell’s Abbot and Costello! Man, oh, man, how do we do these things in the name America? If you love America, there should be some fire in your belly! We can get rid of these “Putz” leaders that Wall Street bought for us!

  • factsobill

    The Troika of Obama,Reid and Holder. The liars! McConnell and Boehner! The Back Stabbers! The 1st three are anti-Constitutionalists! The other two are the Enablers! These guys will never come to our rescue! Remember Benghazi! If we don’t come to our own aid, well…….

    • twopartysystem1

      The root cause is the two-party system monopoly. High cost, low quality, and few choices – just like any monopoly.

      • Mygoodness

        Yet no where is it written that a third party could not come on the seen. Unfortunately third parties in the US are usually a presidential candidate and nothing else. However, if the tea party people feel they are being misunderstood they may break away from the republicans. Kinda like the Know Nothing’s did from the Whigs in the 1850′s

        • twopartysystem1

          Well, in fact at least two specific levers keep third parties at bay: 1). In all cases, third parties are subjected to higher ballot petition signature hurdles than any Republi-Crats. For instance, there is a case now in Chicago challenging the 12,500 signatures that third parties need when Republi-Crats need only 5,000. Interesting that the last independent who ran for governor in PA – Carl Romanelli – was billed/fined/punished for $80k by a (Republi-Crat) judge for the time that Republi-Crat lawyers took to go through his ballot signatures. And 2). Since no independent party will ever sponsor the sham presidential debates again (The League of Women Voter’s quit due to the Republi-Crat “rules” fixing the debates) the Republi-Crats now own the fake debate sponsorship (The Commission on Presidential Debates) and third parties are not invited. Some folks are surprised to know that both the LIberrtarian (Badnarik) and Green party (Cobb) candidates have been arrested for trespassing – just for trying to attend the fake presidential debates. Republi-Crats will do anything, including criminal behavior to protect their monopoly on US gov’t positions.

  • thesafesurfer

    Obama will blame Bush with his last breath on this earth. The man has no sense of personal responsibility.

    • tess

      how could he – he doesn’t have a clue WHO he is!?!?!? personal responsibility comes with knowing who and what you are! this is an empty man who surrounds himself with sycophants like that stupid valarie jarrett who says he’s too smart for this world! ok. – find another one to live in – we’ve had it with you on this earth!

    • Mondovibe
      • JP

        Okay, we get it, OFA is asking you to send everyone to the WH link today. Noted. Anyone not looking for the OFA talking points of the day, carry on…..

        • Mondovibe

          No Mr Attitude, everyone can engage w/whitehouse.gov everyday.

          • JP

            Despite your patriarchal assumptions, I am a woman and totally capable of telling this WH how I feel about their policies without your help, thanks.

    • Dan

      None of them do

  • tess

    o’dumpo is a sleazy, lying, arrogant, stupid, evil, angry, narcissitic, petty fool. can he also blame that on bush? he might could blame it on his parents if he knew who they were?

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      Roll Call. Why is that you attract so many flies to a sticky.

  • Robert177

    Obama will never realize that the job of President is NOT a popularity contest. Rather, it’s about being an effective leader and a relentlessly hard worker. Sadly, Obama is neither. This Republican is looking forward to anyone, even Hillary. Too bad the next 3 years will be nothing but malaise.

    • Dan

      Hillary would be better bit I don’t think the dems will nominate her

      • Layla

        She will be 70 years old. Can’t we find SOMEBODY who still has a pulse????

        • Dan

          I don’t think they will say she’s too old. I think they will say she isn’t left wing enough

  • JD303

    Sorry in advance for the length/rant. Love how the WH is shifting the blame from Mr. Bush to “Congress” primarily for the “government shutdown” and not acting on “the administration’s job proposals”. Hmmm, let me recall. The shutdown happened because the House wanted to delay the ACA for a year and the Senate and Mr. Obama didn’t. In effect, Mr. Obama has delayed 90% of the ACA for a year, so why didn’t he and the Senate agree with the House last October again? Then we have the statement that “Congress” hasn’t acted on the administration’s jobs proposals. Implying, once again, that the Republican House is obstructing Mr. Obama’s glorious 5-year’s-too-late jobs proposals. Conversely, Mr. Reid has 40+ job’s bills (passed by the House) that he won’t even bring for an up/down vote. Granted, I’m not so partisan that I won’t concede that some of them are “political” bills. However, there are some that might actually help with job’s creation. Surely 1 or 2, at least, are worth discussing on the Senate floor. Sadly, that doesn’t fit with the Obama/Reid/Media cabal’s game plan. Despite the reality that Dems controlled both chambers for 2 of the 5 years and the WH/Senate for the last 3, the media has somehow convinced a significant portion of this nation that House Republicans are oh-so powerful that they have stymied this President’s “laser beam” focus on job creation. Nevermind the reality that Mr. Obama has pivoted 10-20ish times to and from “jobs, jobs, jobs” to the issue of the moment (current one = income inequality); he never questioned about blowing his first 2 years on everything but jobs and/or he never gets called out on shifting away from jobs in the first place. Nevermind that Mr. Reid sits on those House jobs bills (and tens of other House bills), it’s always the House that somehow isn’t working on the people’s business, never the Senate. It’s always the House’s fault for not bringing something to the floor, again, never the Senate’s fault.
    If you’re a working-stiff and vote (D), I beg you to ask yourself if this: Is the current (D) leadership is serving your economic interests or are they more focused on growing the Democrat party’s rolls? More Federal regs, more IRS agents, more gov control of HC = potential (D) voters. More welfare, food stamp, unemployment insurance, etc. = potential (D) voters.
    It’s a perfect storm for them (given the media cover). Grow the Federal dole, grow the government workforce while pinning the “lack of jobs” stalemate on the House.

    • Ryno Lascavio

      Like I said before, EVERYTHING Obama does is fueled by politics. Really, its all you need to know about him.

      • JD303

        Excellent point (and much more concise than my post, lol). I’d say the same is equally true of Harry Reid (much more than any other Senator or Representative).

  • skip1

    Bush, jr. Is a war criminal who also very nearly destroyed the American economy. Neither of these will ever be forgotten.

    • Victoria Koseck

      Obama, the Dictator is Failed Socialist Imperial Narcissist that uses drone to kill innocent people!

      • skip1

        Bush killed over 10,000 Americans. How can you possibly forget this???

    • tpaine1

      Obama: “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it . . . period.” Another of many Big Lies by Democrats. What is it with Democrats and compulsive lying??

      • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

        No lie. If you like your health insurance, you can keep it period. Look it up and get back to us.

    • lrjrj

      Thats right, GOP was infamously supportive of “affordable housing” policies pushed by progressive left. Oh, I forgot, the greedy bankers (in bed with Dem appointees at Freddy & Fannie) did it, and who cares that Democrats let them? Fed Regulators audited and excoriated massive fraud and negligence on the accounting books and practices “threatening the entire finical system..”. Did Republicans or Dems blast these regulators (Cong Black Caucus, Obama, Frank, Meeks, all bullied and buried the legislation meant to reign in this house of cards. And Obama rode the fiction of “Bush policies meltdown” to victory. And its already forgotten,

    • lrjrj

      Didn’t Dems vote for Iraq? And now we know only opposed when it became politically profitable? No partisanship with troops in the field used to be respected by Dems, but yet another bar lowered by the leftist Democrats. Hillary proved what Obama has been his whole life, that lying is required to get elected as a leftist, and nothing is more important than leftist influence, whether the people want it or not.

      • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

        History. George H.W. Bush invaded part of Iraq. George W. Bush invaded all of Iraq. Do your homework. The rest is nonsense.

    • Dan

      Obama is a foreign born. Totally illegitimate

      • rlewis

        I suppose Ted Cruz born in Canada is alright.

        • Dan

          Not if he was president

      • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

        Hawaii is not a foreign state. It’s a state. Hope you got an F in high school of did you flunk out?

        • Dan

          Yes, I’m completely illiterate.

  • Ryno Lascavio

    Glad to see Bay-nerd telling us what we already knew. Now he can go back to bashing those in his own party.

  • LarryInParker

    “White House has repeatedly said the economy would be much better off if Congress would avoid self-inflicted wounds like the shutdown and a series of debt limit crises and act on the president’s jobs proposals”

    The government shutdown (of 15% of the government) happened because the Democrats couldn’t accept the Republicans last compromise offer to revoke the ACA tax on medical devices and delay the individual mandate by one year. The way it’s going, it looks like that was not a bad idea and still may happen. The President blames the Republicans when they reject his partisan, no-compromise, my way or the highway, proposals.

    I’m not saying only the Dems are at fault; both sides are acting like children.

  • csmats

    Obama can’t blame Bush anymore? Why not? Stupid does whatever it wants, which means doing stupid things. Like a second term president continuing to blame his predecessor.

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      Obama has never blamed Bush for anything. Where did you read this. In a comic book?

  • tpaine1

    The American Democrat media didn’t notice the economy IMPROVED during the “partial government shutdown.” Maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there???

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      He flunked.

  • lrjrj

    As with most political polling in this county, the only question I have is, who are those who still DONT believe the economy is Obama’s fault? Why are there ANY Americans (not currently institutionalized) who think a 2 yr Dem supermajority, followed by 2.5 yrs of 2/3 Dem govt is responsible? It’s depressing, but you could understand why the Dems and the anti-capitalism message works, why a “war on women” could be persuasive, and why citizens in a limited gov’t would vote for unlimited spending when we are $17T in deficits.

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      Baffling.

  • Mondovibe
  • nobamunism

    Glad that’s settled……….now Boehner can get back to unleashing 30 million illegals onto the economy.

    • Layla

      Let’s see: 92 million UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS plus 30 MILLION ILLEGALS equals……..now you get the picture.

      • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

        Your picture ran out of batteries,

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      Huh?

  • dnaijaman

    Was David an understudy of Raz or Lunz? What is is track record?

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      That was GOP Luntz who only did focus groups of about a couple of dozens. Not regular large samples that almost all others do.

  • Nixonfan

    Higher taxes on those who actually pay taxes, killing infrastructure projects like the Keystone pipeline, paying millions of Americans not to work via unemployment, creating millions of state dependents with 2-year unemployment, disability, free healthcare, food stamps, new EPE regulations to shut down the coal industry, wasting the stimulus on clean energy boondoggles, an undeclared war on the business community–Bush didn’t do this. Obama did.

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      1. The Keystone project is underway. 2. Unemployment is declined from 8.1% Aug 2012 to 6.7% Feb 2014. 3. And “…paying millions of Americans not to work via unending unemployment” is total nonsense. It’s not happening. The rest is total nonsense Nixonian.

  • Layla

    Yes, Obama must take the blame. However, that also includes ANY Member of Congress aiding and abetting this assault on the Constitution, or doing nothing to stop it.

    That includes YOU, Mr. Speaker.

  • G21

    Those who profess no limits to the actions which can be taken in the majority’s name are undermining liberty and democratic processes.

    • Jesse4

      No, straw-men don’t undermine anything.

  • G21

    That “all men are by nature equally free and independent” has been largely replaced with a simplified expression of “free and equal”.

    • Jesse4

      If you really believe all men are equally free, you’re stupid.

  • Jesse4

    Polls or no polls, Obama inherited a destroyed economy, and it takes time to recover from that sort of thing.

  • A.F. Meincke

    The Tea Party is going nowhere!

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      Absolutely correct. Tea Party Poopers have a very narrow following.

    • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

      Tea Party Pooper almost gone. Never got far. Only about 20% support.

  • dannyo66

    “When asked about polls, senior administration officials tend to point out that the president remains far more popular than the Congress”
    Only, every new poll that comes out has Obama getting less and less popular. At this rate, by the end of his current term, if he makes it that long, he might be in the single digit approval rating. Remember votes have consequences. Vote Republican in 2014.

  • http://marketsharescorp.com/ Nick10

    Boehner said: “Barack Obama came into office blaming George W. Bush for the state of the economy and the lack of job creation”.
    Of course we can blame George W. How about the $4.6 trillion added to the debt under the Bush administration, back in the days when George W. said “deficits didn’t matter”.
    Back in FY 2001 when Clinton left office the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion. From 1998 to 2001 [Oct. fiscal years] Clinton had four years of surpluses. Only president that did so. No others did not. When Bush left office in FY 2009 and after six years of GOP House control (the “deficits didn’t matter” gang} national debt had increased to $10.4 trillion.
    And (R) Pollster David Winton. “49 percent of poll respondents believed the “policies of the present” were responsible for the troubled economy” is a loaded biased nonsense question. You can always find a pollster that will do whatever you want.

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...