US Presidents blamed on the bad economy

rainforests1

Forum Legend
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Reaction score
101
Hoover is blamed on the Depression. Bush is blamed on the recession. On the other hand, Roosevelt is given credit for getting us out of the Depression(it was the war actually). Is this fair? If we're going to be consistent, how much time should Obama be given before he gets blamed for the mess our economy is still in? I hear Obamacare is not friendly to small businesses, so you'd have a legitimate case here.
 
Obamacare has had zero impact on small businesses to date so currently it's a non-factor. That may change as it gets fully implemented, time will tell.
 
Obamacare has had zero impact on small businesses to date so currently it's a non-factor. That may change as it gets fully implemented, time will tell.
Not really. Back in June,
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3468498

"CNBC
Small business owners' fear of the effect of the new health-care reform law on their bottom line is prompting many to hold off on hiring and even to shed jobs in some cases, a recent poll found..."

"
Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."
 
at first I was excited about the Obamacare to get passed , I even have a certificate I signed up for from Obama's campaign back in 2010 however, I not sure what to think anymore..
 
at first I was excited about the Obamacare to get passed , I even have a certificate I signed up for from Obama's campaign back in 2010 however, I not sure what to think anymore..
I think there are a lot of good things that will come out of the new health care laws, but they are not perfect by any stretch.

Businesses are afraid of changes and uncertainty, so hopefully as the laws are implemented, they will relax and not overreact.
 
I think there are a lot of good things that will come out of the new health care laws, but they are not perfect by any stretch.

Businesses are afraid of changes and uncertainty, so hopefully as the laws are implemented, they will relax and not overreact.
Yes I am on the fence for it now , our area our health care is great, a few months ago I was rushed by ambliance to the hospital, we were concerned over the billing. When we got the bill our medicare picked up most of it and only cost us 150.00 dollars, when my husband called the billing they set up payments for 25 a month until its paid, we lucked out on that trip to ER.
 
Hoover is blamed on the Depression. Bush is blamed on the recession. On the other hand, Roosevelt is given credit for getting us out of the Depression(it was the war actually). Is this fair? If we're going to be consistent, how much time should Obama be given before he gets blamed for the mess our economy is still in? I hear Obamacare is not friendly to small businesses, so you'd have a legitimate case here.

Obama was blamed for the economy practically since the day he was first sworn in in 2009, at least by the Republicans. According to them, GW Bush had nothing to do with it. It was somehow caused by Obama's black voodoo magic or something while campaigning for President, just to get people to vote for him instead of for McCain.

And it's human nature to blame politicians in general and specifically political leaders such as presidents and prime ministers for the economy, why your daughter got pregnant by mistake, why your neighbor has a large decrepit boat in his front yard, and pretty much everything else.

Trust me, by the time Obama leaves office, plenty of Democrats (his own party) will be blaming him for practically everything also.
 
"Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."

Call me skeptical, but I'm really doubting that the ACA raised costs high enough for most of these employees that they became unprofitable.

I suspect they wanted to cut people anyways and would rather blame Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Obama was blamed for the economy practically since the day he was first sworn in in 2009, at least by the Republicans. According to them, GW Bush had nothing to do with it. It was somehow caused by Obama's black voodoo magic or something while campaigning for President, just to get people to vote for him instead of for McCain.

And it's human nature to blame politicians in general and specifically political leaders such as presidents and prime ministers for the economy, why your daughter got pregnant by mistake, why your neighbor has a large decrepit boat in his front yard, and pretty much everything else.

Trust me, by the time Obama leaves office, plenty of Democrats (his own party) will be blaming him for practically everything also.
It depends on how the rest of his administartion goes. I hear general positive comments from Democrats about Roosevelt, Truman, Wilson, Clinton, and Carter. Even Johnson is not criticized.

We hear nothing about the aid Hoover was giving Europeans during two World Wars. It's all about his failures as President. I have no idea why saving possibly millions of lives is ignored.
 
We hear nothing about the aid Hoover was giving Europeans during two World Wars. It's all about his failures as President. I have no idea why saving possibly millions of lives is ignored.

Hoover was president from 1929 to 1933.

Which "two world wars" are you talking about?
 
Not really. Back in June,
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3468498

"CNBC
Small business owners' fear of the effect of the new health-care reform law on their bottom line is prompting many to hold off on hiring and even to shed jobs in some cases, a recent poll found..."

"
Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare. And almost one-fifth—19 percent— answered "yes" when asked if they had "reduced the number of employees you have in your business as a specific result of the Affordable Care Act."

I'll take my anecdotal evidence over polls posted re Obamacare any day. Zero percent of all the small businesses I work with have changed anything in the way they run their businesses because of Obamacare... yet. I don't think they will either. We are talking an extremely small percentage of business that will be impacted, the vast majority that have enough employees to be impacted already provide health insurance, those that don't offer health insurance typically don't have enough employees to be penalized for not offering it.

IMO what the polls represent is fear over the unknown... they are ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
I think there are a lot of good things that will come out of the new health care laws, but they are not perfect by any stretch.

Businesses are afraid of changes and uncertainty, so hopefully as the laws are implemented, they will relax and not overreact.

And that is the real problem right now, people do not know for sure how they will be impacted and they fear the worst (understandable).
 
Yes I am on the fence for it now , our area our health care is great, a few months ago I was rushed by ambliance to the hospital, we were concerned over the billing. When we got the bill our medicare picked up most of it and only cost us 150.00 dollars, when my husband called the billing they set up payments for 25 a month until its paid, we lucked out on that trip to ER.

Health care is great if you are not one of the people falling through the cracks, typically the working poor.
 
I maintain that the biggest problem with health care isn't the path the payment takes, since it originates from the same place regardless (you the worker or you the tax payer), but the end cost of the health care. Whether insurance is abandoned altogether or made completely socialized is ultimately going to make little difference in the burden it places on everyone if those costs can't be brought under control.

What we need isn't a different system of paying for treatment, but a focus on preventive health care to reduce the demand for treatment.
 
One of the other major complaints about Obamacare is it cuts down on the amount of hours that is considered full-time. Many workers will have their hours cut. I'm not sure what excuse a person can make for this. Even many liberals are against Obamacare.

Hoover was president from 1929 to 1933.

Which "two world wars" are you talking about?
You obviously don't know much about Hoover. He was helping feed or clothe maybe 100 million people during the two World Wars. It's part of what got him his fame before becoming President.
 
You obviously don't know much about Hoover. He was helping feed or clothe maybe 100 million people during the two World Wars. It's part of what got him his fame before becoming President.

WWII was before Hoover's presidency?
 
One of the other major complaints about Obamacare is it cuts down on the amount of hours that is considered full-time. Many workers will have their hours cut. I'm not sure what excuse a person can make for this. Even many liberals are against Obamacare.

One of the major complaints about minimum wage laws is that they cost jobs. For instance, if employers weren't required to pay $7.15 per hour, they could employ twice as many people, at $3.58 per hour. That would solve the unemployment problem. I'm not sue what excuse a person can make for this.


And, BTW, liberals who are against the Affordable Care Act are against it because they don't think it goes far enough - most would like to see a single payor system.


I think that you might be the one to benefit from learning a bit more about Hoover, not just to figure out timeline issues but also his role vis a vis the Bonus March and what happened in and to "Hooverville."
 
One of the major complaints about minimum wage laws is that they cost jobs. For instance, if employers weren't required to pay $7.15 per hour, they could employ twice as many people, at $3.58 per hour. That would solve the unemployment problem. I'm not sue what excuse a person can make for this.

"Excuse"? Even ignoring your shaky grasp of economics, at a full 40 hours a week, $3.58 is $622.66/mo.

I think it's rather self-evident that trying to pay rent, transportation, food, clothing, healthcare, and misc expenses on $622.66/mo ain't going to work too well for most people.
 
Last edited:
"Excuse"? Even ignoring your shaky grasp of economics, at a full 40 hours a week, $3.58 is $622.66/mo.

I think it's rather self-evident that trying to pay rent, transportation, food, clothing, healthcare, and misc expenses on $622.66/mo ain't going to work too well for most people.

It would be worthwhile to check your sarcasm detection meter. It appears to be malfunctioning.