Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Economy, Energy (CNN 12/2-3)


CNN / Opinion Research Corporation
12/2-3/09; 1,041 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(CNN: Warming, Economy)

National

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of global warming?
45% Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories
23% Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities
31% Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven

Which of these positions do you agree with most:
58% The United States should reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that may contribute to global warming even if it does so by itself
17% The United States should reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that may contribute to global warming only if other countries do so as well
24% The United States should not reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases regardless of what other countries do

How well are things going in the country today -- very well, fairly well, pretty badly or very badly?
3% Very Well
31% Fairly Well
42% Fairly Badly
24% Very Badly

Do you think the economy is in a recession, or not? (IF YES:) Do you think we are in a mild recession, or a moderate recession, or a serious recession?
36% Yes, serious
35% Yes, moderate
13% Yes, mild
16% No

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of economic conditions today?
15% The economy is starting to recover from the problems it faced in the past year or so
46% An economic recovery has not started but conditions have stabilized and are not getting any worse
39% The economy is still in a downturn and conditions are continuing to worsen

As you may know, the U.S. went through a depression in the 1930s in which roughly one out of four workers were unemployed, banks failed across the country, and millions of ordinary Americans were temporarily homeless or unable to feed their families. Do you think it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not likely at all that another depression like that will occur in the U.S. within the next 12 months?
17% Very
26% Somewhat
39% Not very
19% Not at all

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

My take on Obama and the economy for those of you who understand Pro Sports as follows. If you are a president taking over when the economy is good like Bush did when we had a surplus, it was like replacing a succesful manager or coach from the Lakers, Yankees, or Pittsburgh Steelers who have been successful. Our country's economy and infrastructure declined during the latter years of the Bush administration. Obama took over a country that was struggling and had increasing unemployment. That would be like someone taking over the Detroit Lions or Kansas City Royals, two sports teams who have had years of losing seasons. You don't expect miracles of a coach or baseball manager taking over a team with a lot of problems, yet you are expected to make them into a winning team. The way the public has expected of Obama might as well be as thouugh he was coaching the Steelers instead of the Detroit Lions. The expectations are high and the promises are higher.

____________________

Stillow:

Farleftandproud

I love you libs and your revisionist history. The economyt went into recession when Bush took office, the stock bubble had popped and financial scandals during the Clinton years such as Enron and Worldcom all popped in the first year of Bush's first term...in addition to the terror attacks of 9/11......

Took over or a good economy......you libs are amazingly dense.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Beat me to it Stillow. But given Farlefts idiotic comments on the other thread that criticizing Obama's policies makes you racist (as if that word has any meaning any more given the use of it by libs) it is no surprise that he would make this asinine remark as well.

Far left, the difference was that Bush did the RIGHT things to boost the economy with permanent tax cuts and defense spending- both having the highest multipliers for stimuli.

Farleft, what has Obama done to help the economy? Name just two things.

____________________

Porchnik:

When you fall down the rightwing rabbit hole, you enter a Wonderland where up is down, night is day, and 2+2=5. It's a sort of parallel universe where George Bush saved the economy by deregulating Wall Street and cutting taxes for the rich, and where his invasion of Iraq was a brilliant military success.

But for the rest of us who inhabit a place called Reality, George Bush is an abject failure who left the country a weaker, broker, more cynical place.

____________________

Travis:

@Stillow: Are you staying that Bush didn't squander a fiscal surplus?

____________________

Roman:

Field Marshal,

Well, for one thing he has cut taxes.

But anyway, it doesn't matter. We can argue until we are blue in the face about theories. Look at the RESULTS!

The stock market is up 60% off its lows. This month of December will be the first months in 2 years with positive jobs data. GDP is increasing. Inflation is non-existent (Which is actually a bad thing, but that's too much for you guys to understand)

And here is my ultimate trump card. We are sitting here and are just yelling at each other with nothing at stake. People who do have money at stake are betting on there being a recovery and economists who get paid for making predictions are also predicting recovery.

And since all of you conservatives say the market is always right, what should that be telling you??

____________________

Stillow:

You are partially right. W's big problem was his spending. he is a big spender just like Obama. Early on he did some good things, cut taxes, helped the nation thru 9/11....helped clean up the mess Clinton left him. But as many politicans do, he caught cantspendenoughitis and that is when it fell apart for him.

However in Bush's wildest spending dreams, even he could not match Obama's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. Clinton left quite a mess for Bush to clean up....as Bush left quite a mess for Obama to clean up...as Carter left Reagan quite a mess to clean up. Its pretty normal to inherit problems from a previous president. But instead of cleaning up the mess, Obama is amplifying it by tripling our deficit and trying to get the g'ment to takeoever various aspects of the private economy, most notably health care.

Its no wonder his approval is now in the mid 40's and continuing to trend downward.

____________________

Stillow:

Travis

If you understood revenue streams and economies of scale, you would know the surplus largely dried up due to the recession he inherited as well as large financial scandals such as Enron. Plus the stock bubble had created a lot of phantom revenue to the g'ment which dried up when it popped. As we continues to lose jobs thru 2001 and 2002 due to the recession and 9/11 less revenue went to the g'ment.

Bush should have demanded spending cuts during the recession, but instead he showed his true fiscally liberal colors and spent like a drunk sailor in vegas.

So to blame Bush entirely is stupid, since there were numerous factors involved, some within his control and some not.

____________________

Field Marshal:

@Porchnik,

I see we have another irrational far left loon who drank too much of the dem kool aid.

You hit all the Dumb (dem) talking points i see. Tax cuts for the rich. WRONG! Deregulation. WRONG! Iraq being failure. WRONG!

Maybe you should try thinking and learning for yourself before you spout your ridiculousness here. And people wonder how Goebbels got the German people to go along with Hitlers final solution. He would have had a field day with people like Porchnik!!

____________________

Roman:

His approval is in the mid 40s cause unemployment is still high. But it will start going down in 2010 and then we'll see how things go.

Oh and btw, the high deficit that exists now, exists mostly cause of TARP and falling tax revenues due to the recession. Obama's stimulus this year amoutned to $200 billion spent, a fraction of the current deficit.

Oh and to the guy who said that military spending is the best stimulus. Go tell that to the Soviets. They were trying to do that all throughout the 80s to get their economy going again. And what are you trying to imply through that statement? That Obama should start another war to get our economy moving??

Oh and those tax cuts that you love Bush for were the main reason he had such deficits during even good years of his presidency. That and the increased military spending.

____________________

Field Marshal:

@Roman,

Yes, look at the results. The '01-'03 was one of the shallowest recessions because he cut taxes and had a REAL stimulus plan.

And you know for sure Dec will have positive jobs data? Would you care to wager money on that?

Lastly, i agree we are in recovery mode. But my question has not been answered. What did Obama do to make the recovery happen? All the programs the supposedly brought us back from the abyss were instituted by Paulson and Bush. Obama is just a figurehead. The only thing he has done was A) vote for the TARP and B) pass the stimulus.

Regarding his stimulus, only $157.8b has been spent according to recovery.gov. Given that the administration claims to have saved or created 640k jobs, that amounts to $246k per job. That's a real government success in my book.

But yes the market is up IN SPITE OF Obama's policies. How much higher would it have been had a cardboard cutout been in that office instead of the socialist?

____________________

Stillow:

GDP is up only because the g'ment pumped money that didn't exist into the system via cash for clunkers and first tiem home buyer credit. Now that those programs have ended, growth will be negligible. With the Bush tax cuts set to expire next year, you will be putting a huge tax increase on everyone. That will pull money out of the economy and into the wasteful hand of g'ment. The current unemployment number excludes millions of people who have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted.

Unless retail sales surprise everyone and move some of these retailers int othe black for this year, we will see store closings and layoffs next year. The unemployment rate will push up next year unfortunately.

With proposed new taxes and spending on things like cap and trade and HCR, that will be more money taken out of consumer pockets and int othe wasteful hand of g'ment.

Obama has set the table for a nasty double dip. He is increasing taxes when he should be cutting them...he is growing g'ment when he shoudl be shrinking it. TARP was just much Obama's baby as it was Bush's.

I don't balme Obama for the recession, but I do blame him for his handling of it. Instead of whining and blaming the other guy, he was elected to find solutions. Not tospend trillions of dollar we don't have in the form of giveaways to unions and speical intrest groups.

God I hope I am wrong, but with the things Obama has put in motion, 2010 is going to be very very nasty.

____________________

Porchnik:

You got to hand it to the rightwing creeps who hang around these comment boards all day. Their solution for fixing the economy? Implement the same set of failed ideas that destoyed it in the first place. Case in point: how does the government stimulate job growth? By following the lead of private sector companies and shrink. Yeah . . . that oughta get the wheels turning again.

And btw, if you geniuses think so highly of Bush, why don't you insist Republican candidates embrace his legacy and openly campaign as his political heirs? There's another winning strategy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"Go tell that to the Soviets. They were trying to do that all throughout the 80s to get their economy going again. "

Uhh, did you really try and use the Soviet union as an example of why military spending is not good for the economy? I'm going to let you think about that for awhile and attempt to discern why the parallel is utterly ridiculous.

____________________

Truthseeker:

Stillow,

You keep on saying that Bush inherited a recession. That is ridiculous by any definition of a recession. Also, wasn't Enron largely caused by the crooked Texas Republicans? The fact remains that unemployment under Democratic Presidents was NEVER higher after they left office than when they took office. If you can disprove that, I promise I will stay off the board for the rest of this year.

____________________

Stillow:

Truthseeker:

Bush inherieted a recession...go back and look. We were losing jobs, millions of people lost tons of money in the stock bubble pop...and financial scandals like Enron occured under Clinton's watchful eyes. Add those thing sto 9/11 which really hit our economy badly and you had a recipe for a major problem. Early Bush policies helped the recession be extrmeely mild and short lived. It was not until he became a big liberal spender then things start going south...

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

You are 100% correct on the previous post. Early Bush policies helped the economy immensely. Later ones didn't hurt the economy but the added debt and inflation didn't help.

Bush inherited a recession just like Obama did. However, the US economy is much bigger than any one man or one government can affect. Business cycles last around 8 years on average. We were due for a dip. It just so happens that Clinton was elected on a dip and exited just after a top. He got lucky. Bush didn't. Neither had any influence on those cycles. Ask any economist.

I mean, what are your arguments libs of why Bush policies harmed the economy. Lower taxes, less regulation, a war? All those things are highly stimulative.

Obama will take credit for the economy even though he did absolutely nothing to help it. In fact, he has done everything exactly wrong. Taxes will be increasing at just the wrong time, cap and tax equals more taxes, and a mamoth health care bill that will do nothing to curb the cost of health care.

This is a big problem with this country. People think they know economics from taking one class in high school. Judging by the posts on this board, its obvious most know very little- if anything.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

Ill give some credit where its due, kind of. Clinton had a very solid few years where the economy was rapidly growing, mostly due to barriers and red tape Reagan knocked down, but thats for another day. Clinton did a good job with the surplus for a few years but then his tech bubble recession hit. I don't support Bush and most of the things he did but the first 2 years of his term were solid, I wish the rest panned out his way.

Clinton's bubble burst, you can say he had a surplus, which is nice, but the entitlements are what is really killing in the long run. The money we owe, but don't have just keeps churning and churning

____________________

Travis:

@Stillow: I think you should go back an check your history of the 2001 recession. It began in March 2001.

The "recession" that Bush "inherited" actually saw 2 quarters of positive GDP growth, before slipping into negative GDP growth in the 3rd Quarter of Bush's first term.

In other words, the notion that Bush "inherited" a recession is pure fiction, unless you're no longer defining recessions by traditional methods -- two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

____________________

Stillow:

Travis:

Do you honestly beleive what you just wrote? You think Bush caused the stock bubble pop? Financial scandals and 9/11? Your blaming Bush policies for that recession?

You are beyond any help at this point.

____________________

Thaddeus:

It's funny to hear people blame Obama for the terrible economy and then say Bush can't be blamed for the 2001 recession because the economy is on 8 year cycles and presidents don't have much control or impact on the economy. It's also humorous to hear that Bush did the right thing with defense spending and tax cuts (not permanent, as beyond ten years even repubs couldn't deal with the hole in the budget when Medicare and SSI takes it's toll), but Obama has driven us into the grounds with a stimulus bill which was 40% tax cuts and then mainly infrastructure spending and money to fill state budget holes around MA and education. Seems like six of one and a half dozen of another. Most politicians are basically the same.

As Bush said when he started all the big government economic recovery efforts with Paulson: "Our system of free enterprise rests on the conviction that the federal government should interfere in the marketplace only when necessary. Given the precarious state of today's financial markets, and their vital importance to the daily lives of the American people, government intervention is not only warranted -- it is essential."

It's called pragmatism. I think people forget how close to the abyss we actually were, when they start wanting to blame someone.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR