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.
We're still sorting out and attempting to survive President Bush's "economic policies"! I don't think anyone wants to return to that which has nearly destroyed us. The stench and rot from the carcass of Bush's failure(s) and attack on the United States is still pervasive on Wall Street and are still now more than 18 months later still being reigned in and dealt with.
I know people are a lot smarter now and can clearly see the damage and disaster that Bush and his lot heaped upon us in their economic witchcraft. Well, most at least.
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.
The power of selective reading and comprehension truly is astounding, all of you quoted here managed to ignore this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Hope and Change. LOL! More like Whine and Blame. You guys would buy water by a river.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
[...] they're still focused on assigning blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHouse9
The thing is you are only going to get more of it. This will be their campaign theme so from now until November we will hear more about Bush's bad economic policies
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHouse9
Then again, the current buffoon will make it his legacy to blame someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzelogik
GET OVER IT!
You people never fail to amaze me with your wild accusations and partisan attacks...
btw, what you are doing right now is blaming the president for blaming his predecessor and everything else you perceive to be wrong. In short, you're doing exactly what you critizise in others.
Bush is going to be blamed for many things for generations to come. He left the White House with the nation FUBAR to the max.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
You people never fail to amaze me with your wild accusations and partisan attacks...
btw, what you are doing right now is blaming the president for blaming his predecessor and everything else you perceive to be wrong. In short, you're doing exactly what you critizise in others.
The key difference is that we're posting about the person in charge. I don't blame him for the collapse of the economy, and I don't tout Bush either. Obama ran for office on his ability to fix it. He knew the job when he came in; he proclaimed to have answers. That's the job he said he wanted, and it's what he was elected to tackle. So far, his answers have not worked. His response to that is to point fingers. For that, he gets some blame. Strong leaders do not do that.
The key difference is that we're posting about the person in charge. I don't blame him for the collapse of the economy, and I don't tout Bush either. Obama ran for office on his ability to fix it. He knew the job when he came in; he proclaimed to have answers. That's the job he said he wanted, and it's what he was elected to tackle. So far, his answers have not worked. His response to that is to point fingers. For that, he gets some blame. Strong leaders do not do that.
Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to acknowledge that an economy isn't something that can be fixed overnight.
The instruments and measures that can be used are simply not complex enough, and to this date no right way to run an economy has been identified beyond all doubt. All we've got is "under these circumstances, this measure more or less produced that outcome, at least that's how we interpret that data that we managed to gather". You don't think that if the president could snap his fingers and get all on track he would do it?
Similarly, wars can not be ended on one day (except when one side capitulates, and even then there's cleaning up and re-arranging the furniture to do). Especially in wars as vaguely defined as these.
What was the original goal? Can it still be obtained? Are there newer points of interest that merit further engagement? What would the pros/cons be of withdrawal in short/medium/longterm?
If you then decide to get out (no doubt under the boos and "sissy liberals"/"traitors to the US" calls from the right), you have to manage an insane amount of logistics to get it done cleanly. Again, this doesn't happen overnight.
Let's talk again after this term has ended, and evaluate this presidency accordingly. These are all things that can only be assessed correctly after some time has passed. Of course, this hasn't been an obstacle for all the clowns on this forum who called for the presidents head from his first day in office.
Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to acknowledge that an economy isn't something that can be fixed overnight.
The instruments and measures that can be used are simply not complex enough, and to this date no right way to run an economy has been identified beyond all doubt. All we've got is "under these circumstances, this measure more or less produced that outcome, at least that's how we interpret that data that we managed to gather". You don't think that if the president could snap his fingers and get all on track he would do it?
Similarly, wars can not be ended on one day (except when one side capitulates, and even then there's cleaning up and re-arranging the furniture to do). Especially in wars as vaguely defined as these.
What was the original goal? Can it still be obtained? Are there newer points of interest that merit further engagement? What would the pros/cons be of withdrawal in short/medium/longterm?
If you then decide to get out (no doubt under the boos and "sissy liberals"/"traitors to the US" calls from the right), you have to manage an insane amount of logistics to get it done cleanly. Again, this doesn't happen overnight.
Let's talk again after this term has ended, and evaluate this presidency accordingly. These are all things that can only be assessed correctly after some time has passed. Of course, this hasn't been an obstacle for all the clowns on this forum who called for the presidents head from his first day in office.
You raise some good points.
The problem for Obama is that he made projections about what was going to happen if things like the stimulus passed, and he was wrong. In addition, a study of the stimulus could have predicted that he would be wrong because most of the money was scheduled to be spent a year to a year and half later. His reponse to being wrong is to cast stones at the previous administration which is weak in my opinion. I would feel better about him if he approached things the way you stated them.
You are correct that it can only be assessed later. If he's proven to be correct, then I will give him his due. Again, I would feel better about hiim if he made that point than resort back to trying to find someone else to blame.
The problem for Obama is that he made projections about what was going to happen if things like the stimulus passed, and he was wrong. In addition, a study of the stimulus could have predicted that he would be wrong because most of the money was scheduled to be spent a year to a year and half later. His reponse to being wrong is to cast stones at the previous administration which is weak in my opinion. I would feel better about him if he approached things the way you stated them.
You are correct that it can only be assessed later. If he's proven to be correct, then I will give him his due. Again, I would feel better about hiim if he made that point than resort back to trying to find someone else to blame.
Agreed on the gist of your post.
It would be helpful to know the basis of said projection. If it was made to further the consumers' confidence and thus get the economy going, it was a valid try. Otherwise, not so.
On a sidenote: I would really like to see the specific wording of the president where he lays the blame on the previous administration. Judging by the reliability of sources or lack thereof of certain rightwing posters on this forum, I'd rather see the original sentence for my own. Anybody got a link?
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.
