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.
It is amazing the levels that these people will stoop too. Right now, I think we would all take Bush's economic policies back over the failures of the current administration and the pathetic Democrat controlled congress. You know, Bush the President whom while he spent uncontrollably still spent far less than now, and the same guy who called for oversight into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was denied by Dems.
But seriously, this is what they are running on? They pretty much have NO wins or successes to speak of so they are reverting to what worked 2 years ago. I think people are a lot smarter now and realize that Obama and his ilk just equates to worse economic conditions and corruption.
When ya got nuthin' you look for someone to blame. The Democrats have nothing. If they could figure out a way to work Nixon into their mess, they'd do that, too.
"...Obama is adding to the economic misery by creating an environment of regulatory uncertainty. The Wall Street reform law Obama recently signed potentially requires 533 new regulations, 60 studies and 93 reports, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency has 29 active rulemakings, and there are 100 new rules on the Labor Department's agenda and 26 at the Transportation Department. Add Obama's determination to raise everybody's taxes by allowing the Bush cuts from 2001 and 2003 to expire Jan. 1, 2011, and it's easy to why banks, businesses and consumers are hoarding trillions of dollars that could otherwise spur economic growth."
Right now, I think we would all take Bush's economic policies back over the failures of the current administration and the pathetic Democrat controlled congress.
I don't think most people would, but in a way, that is the choice coming up in the next few elections. Do we go back to the Bush economic policies, or do we forge ahead with the current one?
In any case, if you are pulling for the GOP, I can see why you'd be nervous whenever Bush's name comes up. I don't see much desire to return to that administration, outside of the members of the GOP. So this is just an infrequent smart move by the Dems, to remind everyone what the two options are.
Bush must be laughing it up. These clowns have elevated him to god-like status. They have several legislative victories and yet they cannot campaign on their own success.
I could see the argument "still blaming Taft" but the Bush years isn't exactly ancient history, in fact some would argue that it isn't even history yet but still unfolding current events.
By the way, you are aware that the Bush administration and the Republicans spent nearly 8 years blaming Clinton.
People have come to realize they have been hoodwinked by obama and the dems and no amount of blaming others for their own failures will make a dent in their own culpability for the mess we have.
I don't think most people would, but in a way, that is the choice coming up in the next few elections. Do we go back to the Bush economic policies, or do we forge ahead with the current one?
In any case, if you are pulling for the GOP, I can see why you'd be nervous whenever Bush's name comes up. I don't see much desire to return to that administration, outside of the members of the GOP. So this is just an infrequent smart move by the Dems, to remind everyone what the two options are.
The argument has holes in it, since we had 4% and 5% unemployment during the Bush years.
I know it's the new democratic party line, but Bush was a big government, big spender, so no one will be going "back to the Bush economic policies". 0bama is only tripling the amount spending and size of government, so we do not want to continue down his path either.
The mood in the country has been to reject big government, big spending, and big taxes, and to hold our elected politicians accountable to do their jobs, when in comes to conducting proper oversight of existing regulations.
People have come to realize they have been hoodwinked by obama and the dems and no amount of blaming others for their own failures will make a dent in their own culpability for the mess we have.
And besides, things only started going down the crapper once the dems took over after the 2006 elections.
The argument has holes in it, since we had 4% and 5% unemployment during the Bush years.
Beautifully illustration of my beliefs on how unemployment rate can be a great tool to hide the reality, and a good selling point come elections.
Now, with that low unemployment rate, how many jobs were added during the eight years? Did wage increase was strong as well? How about budget deficits during a strong economy? For that matter, what was this period of strong economy? When did it begin and end?
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.
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.
