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.
Ah yes, so here we go- someone proposing tax cuts for the rich would have gotten us out of the recession. That was Bush's agenda, it wasn't exactly helping us any.
And no, cutting taxes during a major recession or depression are NOT the answer- any economist would agree. When money dries up like that the government has to pump money into the system. It sucks, we hate to spend money we don't have but it's the only way out- it's been proven time and time again all over the world. The huge amounts pumped into our system stopped the free fall, and though things got bad it kept them from getting a lot worse, again according to many economists.
Things have been bad because it takes a long time to recover from the lows we've been at in so many areas. Do people really expect Obama to miraculously fix all of that in less than two years? The economy was in a literal free-fall when he took office, with no bottom in sight. It's been less than two years, we are stabilized and making very small steps in the right direction- it just takes time, nobody else with any other policies could have made this go any faster. People are frustrated with Obama that it's not going faster and that's understandable- that is why, as others have said, no matter who was in office now they likely would not survive to be elected to a 2nd term.
And Bush inherited the failures and errors of the Clinton Presidency. Perhaps if Slick Willie had been more concerned about Bin Laden than getting oral sex it he Oval Office, 9/11 could have been avoided altogether!
After the large Bush tax cuts, how much lower would you propose taxes be cut? Would this not adversely affect the deficit/debt? Our tax revenue as a proportion of GDP are already at historic lows.
Actually, both the John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tax cuts were larger than the Bush tax cuts.
Then why has everything escalated after he took office?
Because things have to get worse before they get better. Give Obama a break, you can't expect the country to be magically transformed in 1.5 years after 8 years of foolishness.
Because things have to get worse before they get better. Give Obama a break, you can't expect the country to be magically transformed in 1.5 years after 8 years of foolishness.
Why is it that everytime something is pointed out about Obama, the only comeback is "it is better than Bush". The thing is, whether or not you believe it is better than Bush (debate of its own), how does this justify poorly executed policies? Whether or not you believe its better than Bush, isn't it about time to start taking responsiblity for your own party instead of just scapegoating George Bush?
George Bush is not responsible for all our problems. These problems I do lay squarely at his front door:
1. Starting an unnecessary war that cost this country $1 trillion. Mind you, the fiscal bailout of the banks and corporations would have been easy if we hadn't squandered all those resources on a country halfway around the world that has always been a mess.
2. Presiding over the deregulation of banks and financial institutions for seven years before the recession of 2008 hit. The democrats have to take some responsibility too. But, Bush was President and onwatch when the economy busted.
3. Bush bears some percentage of responsibility for 9/11. He was President for approximately eight months before it took place. As commander in chief, he was over the FBI, CIA, and the NSA. There was some intelligence that something was going down. On the other hand, the rightwing was calling Obama "a complete failure" after he had served eight months. What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
4. Maligning the good name of the USA around the world by allowing torture, incarcerations without charges, invading countries that didn't threaten the USA.
Its a sad record. If I accept the notion that Obama has failed in some ways since becoming President, its still much less of an abomination than what I've described under Bush. This man will not down as even an average President. He'll be right there with Richard Nixon and Warren Harding.
Why is it that everytime something is pointed out about Obama, the only comeback is "it is better than Bush". The thing is, whether or not you believe it is better than Bush (debate of its own), how does this justify poorly executed policies? Whether or not you believe its better than Bush, isn't it about time to start taking responsiblity for your own party instead of just scapegoating George Bush?
President Obama doing an exceptional job. He was given the worst mess in history, one of collosal proportions. His haters considered his preisdency a failure even before he was inaugurated, so I find no substance in criticism of Obama that tries to pretend as if 8 years of Bush didn't happen or have any part in the problems that Obama is resolving today.
I can't believe you agree with what must have been sarcasm, even considering the source.
Perhaps if Slick Willie had been more concerned about Bin Laden than getting oral sex it he Oval Office, 9/11 could have been avoided altogether!
Yeah, right. If Leni Riefenstahl had not produced those slick videos, there never would have been a WWII,
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.
