Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-19-2011, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Norman, OK
3,478 posts, read 7,255,485 times
Reputation: 1201

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tropolis View Post
i wasnt alive during the period of 81 and 82 and haven't done enough research to come up with an answer for the question.

there was no 2001 recession.
Yes there was a 2001 recession. It started after the dot-com bust and then was amplified by 9/11.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-19-2011, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,553 posts, read 2,435,782 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
Read the survey question...

"Some people say the nation’s current economic problems are due to the recession which began under the Bush Administration. Others say the problems are being caused more by the policies President Obama has put in place since taking office. Which point of view comes closest to your own?"

Nowhere in that question does it state "Is it Bush's fault?" It asks if you think the state of the economy today is correlated more with the recession that started in 2007 or more with Obama's own policies.
Exactly....and if you read the story carefully, paying attention to the exact words used when it mentions the recession, it also doesn't actually blame Bush or his policies. It's easy to make the assumption that they're blaming Bush when they refer to the recession because of the way it's being worded.

They describe the recession four times in the article:

"A majority of voters continues to blame the nation’s economic problems on the George W. Bush years"

"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely Voters say the nation’s current economic problems are due to the recession that began under the Bush administration".

"In surveys since May 2009, 47% to 62% of voters have blamed the nation's economic woes on the recession that began under Bush".

"While 86% of Democrats and 52% of voters not affiliated with either political party blame the recession under Bush for today’s economic problems"

The headline reads:

"54% Blame Bush Recession For Current Economic Problems"

In each case they very carefully do not blame Bush, they blame the recession that started when he was in office. They don't blame him for the recession or his policies for starting the recession. You read it and you would think they were but, it stops just short of doing that...because they can't, the question asked in the poll is clearly not placing any blame directly on Bush.

The headline IMO, comes the closest to blaming Bush, by referring to it as the "Bush Recession" but,

People are going to say, "Well of course it's his fault....it was on his watch when it started"....and that's a an entirely different debate. As far as this article goes, whether or not the recession that started under Bush is his fault, is not part of the questions asked in the poll.

I think some in the public will often refer to things like this as a lie after reading it although, it's not. It's factual but, easily misinterpreted...they don't even realize the assumptions that they're making. Especially if they're already biased....they can read it over and over and not realize that they're doing that. Then you have all bloggers that are going to add to the confusion with the assumptions they may be making if they re-write or paraphrase it when they put it some where on the Internet.

I've noticed some politicians now very carefully using the word "misinformation" to criticize something like this article above. I think that's a better way of describing a scenario like this but, many in the public (again, especially if they're already biased) will make the assumption that it's just another way of accusing someone of lying. It's not though, it can mean a number of things, the most common of which I think is (intentionally or unintentionally) omitting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2011, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,739,062 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
Yes there was a 2001 recession. It started after the dot-com bust and then was amplified by 9/11.
yep, and the stock market started down for a time. You are right, but some people only remember what they want to remember.

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2011, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,662,429 times
Reputation: 5661
I imagine that number was closer to 100% in Jan of 2009. It has dropped since then and will continue to drop. Unless the economy takes a major swing upwards, that number will be be a big issue come Nov 2012 and I promise you it will not be 54 to the good for the President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-20-2011, 05:17 PM
 
2,488 posts, read 4,321,979 times
Reputation: 2936
I still blame part of it on Bush, but Obama's been in office a while now. So that means Obama's plans aren't really doing any wonders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2011, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,771 posts, read 104,739,062 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90sman View Post
I still blame part of it on Bush, but Obama's been in office a while now. So that means Obama's plans aren't really doing any wonders.
and some of it should be blamed on the Bush administration but remember one more thing: what party had the majority in both houses the last years of Bush? We now have the Republicans in charge of one house. They haven't done much yet which does disappoint some, but they have only been there 4 months. Rome wasn't built in a year, people love to say "give Obama time" how much time?

Nita
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2011, 08:48 PM
Status: "We need America back!" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
52,688 posts, read 47,955,803 times
Reputation: 33845
Default The Real Culprit - Or Culprits

Quote:
Originally Posted by tropolis View Post
54% Blame Bush Recession For Current Economic Problems, 39% Blame Obama - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

thats rasmussen too, so add on another 3.5 points to that 54 percent.

They must have forgotten who they voted for in 2006 for congressional seats. Oh, that's right. That would be the Democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:09 PM
 
782 posts, read 1,087,209 times
Reputation: 1217
The '81 recession was caused by ripple effects of the 1979 energy crisis along with double-digit inflation and interest rates. It was not Reagan's fault.

Past recessions;
1974-1975
1981-1982
1991
2001

All had one thing in common - relatively short recovery period.

The Great Recession has one problem the others did not have to deal with; a far greater number of jobs lost to other countries that will never return. I believe the running tally is now approx 10 million jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:31 PM
 
782 posts, read 1,087,209 times
Reputation: 1217
As far as Bush being blamed for the economic crisis? The mess was created long before he took office. Bush just fed fire to the crisis.

Deregulation of the bankers, free trade scripted by NAFTA and CAFTA, tax breaks to corporations to offshore jobs. The seeds were planted in the 80's and 90's.... Bush helped the problems grow.

Obama won't or can't fix problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Illinois Delta
5,767 posts, read 5,014,662 times
Reputation: 2063
What about that surplus that Bush '43 inherited? He wasted it and then grew the national debt by trillions by going into Iraq. Never mind that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis and were trained there...Bush just kept holding their hands, with a manly peck on the cheek now and again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:07 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top