If the economy does start to take off next year, will Obama still blame Bush?
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.
They have been saying it will turn around next year for the past four years. Lol.
I expect more of the same. Modest job growth and millions of people dropping out of the workforce because they give up. If not for the millions of people giving up on looking our unemployment rate would still be above 9%.
And each year for the last four years the economy has improved! Imagine that. We will continue to have modest job growth until we take tax incentives away from corporations to offshore their jobs! Dems didn't take the jobs offshore. We would be happy to work across the aisle to bring them back.
If the economy does start to take off next year, will Obama still blame Bush?
Of course we will. Why do you think he's been hiding out on his Texas flatland for the past five years?
Look at the impact Pres, Clinton made after he left office. He went global and now is working on global initiatives to improve the human condition.
Bush has been out riding fences on his spread.
In a way, I'm with him, as I still have the specialized fence tool a cowboy uses when he's out riding fences. Lot's of reflection time.
Actually he isn't riding fence, he became an artist.....finally something he is actually pretty good at!
1) Your knowledge of history, even recent history, is lacking.
2) For 18 months of his first term, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If he didn't "get anything done" it wasn't because of obstruction.
He got health insurance done, he killed Osama. He stopped the decent into financial oblivion. Not bad for the first 18 months. Could have been better with congress doing more, but they were busy believing the repubs actually wanted wo work together. Dems are naive, without a doubt.
1) Your knowledge of history, even recent history, is lacking.
2) For 18 months of his first term, Obama had a Democrat majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If he didn't "get anything done" it wasn't because of obstruction.
Well, let's at least get our history straight. Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election. So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks.
He will blame bush and the tea party he is incapable of taking responsibility
Yeah, he does sort of remind me of a spoiled 6 year old.
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.
