Pollster.com

Could be worse. Personal popularity is a godsend. I would add, before Stillow makes his usual reference, that people weren't exactly over the moon about many of Reagan's policies either but he was able to transcend that and get things done the way he wanted by way of his charisma and likeability. Still tway too early to know whether what Obama has been doing will work (though I know our conservative friends have already written him off). As always we shall see.

Hmmm, these are good numbers for Obama from ABC/Post (D).

And conspiracy, you know it can't work, spending money you don't have to the tune of trillions of dollars cannot work, there's no possible way it can work. At the very best it will create a short lived surge, then come crumbling down again because the debt is goign to be so overwhelming, just paying the intrest alone will be an overwhelming huge part of our budget.

Money doesn't grow on trees, despite what our highly intelligent Vice President thinks, you can't spend your way out of debt. Obama is leading us right into an inflationary recession...if you think it shard to buy things you need now.........yikes!

Drudge was kind enough to post some of the monies spent on that outstanding stimulus bill that was passed.......unbeleivable the amount of money g'ment wastes....and how you liberals support it. Spending trillions of dollars you don't have can lead to only one conclusion, financial collapse, its not a sustainable model. This is stuff you all should have learned in grade school economics....the basic law of finance, if you ear $100, you cannot spend $101 and expect to be viable....you fiscally liberal folks out there earn $100 and spend $1,000,000 and think you can just keep on doing that, no big deal, lets just debt spend forever...............

Predictable as the sun going up and down. Boring.

What can I say? I am a radical on fiscal issues. The truth is often boring, that's why people lie, its more fun. I could have told my spouse I was a CIA superspy working to overthrow the Soviet Union and was also an astronaut who won the lottery and was worth 50 million....but I ended up jus tbeing a boring ole' network engineer.

conpsiracy, its people like you who just confuse me, you seem to genuinely see the danger in overspending, the flaw in our current model and yet you just go laong with al lthe spending. Tryign to provide everythign to everyone when there's simply no money todo it. Your very clearly able to think for yourself which is rare with fiscally liberal people, so I do not understand why you do not aknowledge that this level of debt and spending is destructive.

And you liberals are so inconsistant, for years you railed on Bush for deficit spending on his stupid wars, but now that a D is in office, deficit spending on his own things is suddenly ok?????? At least I have the intelectual honesty to stay consistant with my anti-debt spending ideaology. You libs suddenly love deficit spending if its on things you like.....your playing politics with my kids' futures...and I don't like it.

We are headed for a 2 trillion dollar deficit and a 20 trilliong dollar project debt after Obama's first term.........do you see nothing wrong with this? Do you still just feel spend spend spend, tax tax tax is the answer to everything?

That is why I don't get you, I know you can see the danger in it, yet you goalong with it, rather than calling for fiscal restraint, you support fiscal insanity!

Bill Clinton at the 2004 Democratic convention sums up how I feel about things.

"We tried it their way for 12 years. We tried it our way for eight years. Then we tried it their way for four more. (make that eight!) By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better."

Too early to say right now. We shall see.

Bill forgot about the recession he left us in 2000....or the ton of money many many lost in the stock market crash of 2000. And the 80's were a time of economic boom, the middle class thrived in the 80's...heck, Reagan was elected twice by asking one question, are you better off than you were foru years ago....

Recessions are normal, usually on average about one per decade....but using Clinton who I actually voted for in 96 isn't a very good marker.

Don't foget the 90's were also the start of the credit binge, if you look at the extending of credit during the 90's to to the 80's its night and day. The 90's people began to live beyond their means....then in the 2000's they used there inflated home values to live beyond there means.

I never did that, I literally saw all my neighbors put in pools and buy new fancy cars, meanwhile my kids have a $80 waterslide from WalMart and I still drive my 1992 Toyota....people who are smart with there money get rewarded, those are not suffer....thats just how it is.

This there way my way stuff is hogwash, its g'ment that is the problem and its big g'ment that is destructive and its debt spending.

Also don't forget Clinton had a conservative Congress to keep him in check, the 90's by most standards had very conservative approach to things, such as welfare reform, etc. The GOp didn't go nutty til they controled both branches, just as the Dems are doing now, going ntty with spending since they have both branches!

Oh and those neighbors who bought those fancy cars and put in those pools using inflated home prices, now many of those homes have foreclosure signs in the windows....why? Because they spent to much damn money, just like our g'ment is doing......................

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

W had good jobs numbers too and he started with a recession and had 9/11 to deal with....your looking at it to black and white!

FDR did all this g'ment spending too and it didn't work, Obama's won't work either. Anytime you transfer wealth from the people to g'ment, it doesn't help the people.

C'mon conspiracy, I know you want to admit to yourself all this spending is doing more hamr than good....Clinton didn't do all this spending, so what ws the clinton way? Wasn't it responsible g'ment spending??????????

Your close, you on on the verge of aknowledgement that g'ment debt spending is bad. Spending money we don't have it bad.....admitting the problem is the first step to recovery....your side is addicted to spending....like any drug, it can be overcome!

"Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record"

Title of the linked article and table. The New Deal is open to debate - economists on both sides have been at it for decades and that will no doubt continue for decades more. Clinton raised taxes. The Obama stimulus had huge tax cuts. Both increased the deficit. Clinton left a surplus. Much of the problems we have today can be directly linked to Bush and his tax cut fetish. Now for something completely different. It may not work but I am in no way ready to write Obama off after sixth months in office.

@conspiracy

Come on, I looked at that article, you know that article is misleading. Look at it, it makes Jimmy Carter look great!

Its about timing. Clinton in 1993 took over just as tht eeconomy was rebounding, al lthe losses had already been sustained by Bush sr. He had nowhere to go but up....and the recession he left Bush occured right at the transition, so Bush abosorbed all the losses from the Clinton recession...so it skews the numbers. Reagan absorbed most of Carter's job losses in the early 80's....tso by your theory Carter was great. That chart was writtento be misleading on purpose and you know it. Most of lintons job losses hit in 2001 after he left office, then 9/11....you cannot blame Bush for all those losses, and I am no fan of Bush, but you cannot blame him for those losses....

Bush for most of his time in office had good unemployment numbers up until 2008 when the layoffs really started happening due to the recession. So you cannot send me a chart designed to trick people by skewing the numbers, your smarter than that.

And you know full well Clinton supported fiscal responsibility, not wasteful spending. He is supporting Obama only because he is a D and he is worried about his own legacy, but trust me in private Clinton knows Obama is spending way to much money, just like he railed against Bush for spending to much money we don't have....The Dems to this day still thin kthe 80's were a failure and it was the exact oppositte, Reaganomics not only worked, it thrived and the people seem to htink it worked based o nthe election reuslts of 1984 and 1988.

I don't balme BO for the recession we are in, like I said we all know recessions occur and are normal and healthy, but all his spending i making it worse. He is tryign to rush thru radical liberal legislation like health care right now when people are desperate....the stimulus was a laughing stalk to most people...even polls show no one really thinks its working or will work.

I wish you dems would go back to Clinton era thinking of smaller g'ment and financial responisbility, beleive me, that would be fantastic if you did that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"That chart was writtento be misleading on purpose and you know it."

By the Wall Street Journal? Sure. We are going round in circles. Just wait and see. That be my final word.

Ok, but you know what I said is right....timing is key.

Just send a memo to your party and beg them to go back to linton's small g'ment ideaology!!!!! I beg you!