Bush Still Gets More Blame Than Obama for the Economy

Although President Obama has been in the White House for over a year, more Americans still blame former President Bush for the country's economic problems than they do Obama, according to a Gallup poll conducted March 26-28.

Seventy-five percent blamed Bush a "great deal" or "moderate amount" compared to 50 percent who put responsibility on Obama (these figures include people who blame both). Taking the "great deal" category alone, 42 percent blame Bush a great deal compared to 26 percent who blame Obama.

The percentage of those who blame Obama a great deal is up from 14 percent compared to last July, but Bush's number hasn't changed much from his 43 percent figure last summer. The number of those who blamed Obama a moderate amount rose from 18 percent to 24 percent.

Along party lines, 26 percent of Democrats blame Obama a great deal or moderate amount and 75 percent either not much or not at all. Ninety percent blame Bush a great deal or moderate amount with 10 percent not blaming him much or at all.

Seventy-seven percent of Republicans blame Obama a great deal or moderate amount, with 23 percent not blaming him much or at all. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans put some measure of blame on Bush (although only 15 percent are in the "great deal" category) while 43 percent do not blame him much or at all anymore.

Fifty percent of independents blame Obama a great deal or moderate amount, while 49 percent blame him not much or not at all. Seventy-seven percent still blame Bush, while 24 percent blame him not much or at all.

"Theoretically, Obama accumulates more responsibility for the nation's economy every day he's in office," Gallup said. "That could bear down increasingly hard on his approval rating if unemployment continues to hold at or near 10% and consumer attitudes remain negative. However, the big upside is that should the economy rebound on his watch -- and recent Gallup tracking has some signs of a "nascent" recovery -- Obama is poised to receive much of the credit."

Some time ago a FReeper posted a quote by a congressman during a C-Span interview who indicated that over 500 billion dollars was withdrawn from the money markets over a period of 3-5 hours.

Close -- occasionally someone like Beck, Rush et al mention it -- but it is like the birth certificate issue, not permitted to be discussed.

Kanjorski and the 550bil
Live Leak? | 3-2-2009 | Sequoyah101
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2197915/posts

Rep. Kanjorski: $550 Billion Disappeared in "Electronic Run On the Banks"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w
[Not available on You Tube on 9-09]
[Still … "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation." 11-13-09 and 1-1-10]

RUSH HAS THE ENTIRE SEGMENT FROM THE 1-27-09 C-SPAN VIDEO HERE:
[NOTE:the clip times will be off a little as the transcript was done from the YouTube vid]

starting at 2:08 into the clip --
Look, I was there when the Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve came those days and talked with members of Congress about what was going on. It was about September 15th. Here's the facts, and we don't even talk about these things.
[Rush leaves off the above part and begins here…]
On Thursday [which would have been 9-11] at about 11 o’clock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550-billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a 105-billion into the system, and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.

They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts, and announce a guarantee of $250k per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there, and that’s what actually happened. If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2:00 that afternoon, $5.5 TRILLION would’ve been drawn out of the MM system of the US -- would’ve collapsed the entire economy of the US and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. Now we talked at that time about what would happen if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. And that’s why when they made the point, we’ve got to act and do things quickly we did it.

3:00 --
Now Sec Paulson said let’s buy out these sub-prime mortgages, that’s when he came to congress, but he said give us latitude and large authority to do many things as we decide necessary … and give us $700 B to do that.

Shortly after we enacted our bill with those very broad powers, the UK came out and said No, we don’t have enough money to buy toxic assets. Instead we’re going to put our money into banks so that their equity grows and their not bankrupt.

And so the UK started that process and that’s true, it was much cheaper to put money in banks .. as equity investments than to start buying their bad assets because it came early we determined we would probably have to spend 3-4 Trillion of taxpayer’s money to buy these bad assets and we didn’t have that, we only had 700 Billion.

So Paulsen made a complete switch -- went in and started putting money in buying securities and re-investing in the banks of the US. Why? Because if you don’t have a banking system, you don’t have an economy.

And we…and although we did that, it wasn’t enough money and as fast as we did that, the economy has been falling and the reason that last week, we’re really no better off today than we were 3 months ago because we’ve had a decrease in the equity positions of bank, because the other assets are going sour by the moment.

5:09 --
Now we’ve gotta make some decisions. Do we pour more money in…to what extent that money goes in -- I myself think we ought to take the time, analyze where we are, have the people understand --- when you listen to the lady that just got off the telephone, she is near panic - and - she doesn’t think her government’s acting properly or acting in her behalf. I think it’s important that we start informing that lady as to what really were the facts, what happened, and get input from her -- maybe she has a better idea.

You know we’re not any geniuses in economics or finances on the hill. We’re representatives of the people. We ought to take our time, but let the people know this is a very difficult struggle somebody threw us in the middle of the Atlantic ocean without a life raft and we’re trying to determine which is the closest shore and whether there is any chance in the world to swim that far…
WE DON’T KNOW!

End of transcription and video.

[I found this article substantiating Kanjorski’s claim, albeit the meeting was on the 16th not 15th]

[I also found this video of Kucinich discussing the closed door meeting]

What I want to know is WHY is no one talking about this?
What are they hiding? They were tracking the withdrawals and decided to close down the money accounts. They MUST know who was withdrawing the money and where it was going.

Close -- occasionally someone like Beck, Rush et al mention it

Whenever I hear it discussed, the source always goes back to Kanjorski.

the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550-billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two

How does the Fed notice money "being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two"?

The Treasury opened up its window to help

The Treasury has a window?

and pumped a 105-billion into the system

The Treasury has no pot of money to "pump into the system".

They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts

They? They who? Decided to close what operation? Under what authority?

and announce a guarantee of $250k per account

The Treasury came up with a guarantee? Without Congress?

If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2:00 that afternoon, $5.5 TRILLION would’ve been drawn out

The Treasury did all that? In a few hours?

What I want to know is WHY is no one talking about this?

Maybe because it sounds like a bunch of baloney?

Bush tripled the debt on his watch that is a fact.

President Bush had to deal with an inherited recession and China after 2.5 months in office when he brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew without any bribes or bloodshed. Five months later we had a major terrorist attack on our financial and defense sectors. He waged 2 successful HOT wars while freeing 50 million people, helped with a tsunami, and dealt with a number of devastating hurricanes in our own country. Frankly, I don't give a damn how much he spent.

The FACT of the matter remains that we had 52 months of uninterrupted growth, unemployment was extremely low, the DOW was way up, and life was good. After tripling the debt he pledged to cut it in half within 5 years. Instead he cut it by 60% in 3 years and it was well on it's way to zero before the orchestrated attack on our financial system in September 2008, coupled with the rats stealing their way into the majority for his last 2 years and the blatant lies and constant cranking by not only the rats, but half of the pubs, as if they all had nothing to do with it.
He proposed a budget and EVERY freaking year -- except 2006 -- they added to it!

He never said no to any spending in like the first 6 years.

He had a REPUBLICAN HOUSE and a Rat SINate, or a very thin majority in the SINate. You wanted him to veto his own party? Not to mention MANY concessions had to be made to keep support and funding for the wars which were far more important in the overall view of things.

Of course Obama tripled the debt heading to 4 times in 15 months and shows no signs of stopping.

No, the usurper QUADRUPLED the debt in ONE YEAR.

Whenever I hear it discussed, the source always goes back to Kanjorski.

So? Paul Kanjorski is chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.
Why don't you contact your critters and ask them what they know and when they knew it.

How does the Fed notice money "being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two"?

Are you serious? Are you serious?
This is serious business and the Pelousy response is all that question deserves.

The Treasury has no pot of money to "pump into the system".

Quick, inform CNN who said:
The central banks of Europe, Britain, Switzerland, Japan and Canada teamed up with the U.S. Federal Reserve to pump an additional $180 billion into the global money market.
The Federal Reserve this morning, in three separate operations, has injected $105 billion into the financial system, into the banking system. This is a record amount in one day, even greater than the $81 billion that the Fed injected following September 11 after the attacks. So this -- this is really a big move by our central bank to try to keep the wheels of finance turning.

What happened overnight is that our Federal Reserve, our central bank, handed over, in return for other currencies, handed over $180 billion.

They? They who? Decided to close what operation? Under what authority?

OMG! Get a clue. We have the Treasury Dept., the Federal Reserve, and Money-market funds are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The operation being the run on the money-market accounts.

The Treasury came up with a guarantee? Without Congress?

FDIC ... duh!

The Treasury did all that? In a few hours?

Did all what? Stopped the run on the money-market accounts?

Maybe because it sounds like a bunch of baloney?

Yep. That's why on September 18th President Bush announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was stepping up its enforcement action "against illegal market manipulation."

The next day President Bush announced that the SEC had "launched rigorous enforcement actions to detect fraud and manipulation in the market. Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and prosecuted."

The same day Cliff Kincaid from Accuracy in Media reported, "the SEC announced a `sweeping expansion of its ongoing investigation into possible market manipulation in the securities of certain financial institutions.'"

Whatever...

So? Paul Kanjorski is chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

So? Such a huge story, if it can be tied to Soros who is tied to Obama, would be huge. Why no Republican sources? Why no front page story in the Wall Street Journal? On Fox every night?

How does the Fed notice money "being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two"?

Are you serious? Are you serious?

Deadly serious. So how serious is your source? Trillions (trillions with a T) go thru the Fed wire system everyday.

Do you imagine some goes thru with a memo, "Regular Wire, nothing nefarious here" while some goes thru with a memo saying, "Money Market Money, part of a secret plot"?

Quick, inform CNN who said: The central banks of Europe, Britain, Switzerland, Japan and Canada teamed up with the U.S. Federal Reserve

Changing your story? Your "source" said the Treasury (Treasury with a T) not the Federal Reserve. There is a difference.

We have the Treasury Dept., the Federal Reserve, and Money-market funds are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Your original "source" said Treasury (With a T), not the Fed or the FDIC. I didn't see the SEC mentioned either. And the Treasury, FDIC and SEC can't just make stuff up, in a few hours to stop the economy from crashing by 2:00 in the afternoon.

The Treasury came up with a guarantee? Without Congress?

FDIC ... duh!

You think the FDIC can boost coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 without Congressional approval? And in a few hours? The FDIC is different than the Treasury.

And 18 months later, not a word.

If you find a serious source that knows the difference between the Treasury and the Fed (and the FDIC and the SEC), please ping me. Such a serious story deserves a better source.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Bush is our Carter and every election the dem's will point to him...