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.
Researchers have shown that Bush's poor economic policies and unfunded wars will have a lasting negative effect on the American economy, as many as ten years after he vacated office.
So we are still 5 years later and its bushes fault is still the excuse.
So president Bush controlled the economy but president Obama does not . So Obama must be even more incompetent than Bush
The answer to the question depends upon which President you have in mind. Critics of President Obama blame him for everything. Even when an Amtrak train is off schedule, or so it seems.
While you run around blaming Bush for doing 1/10th of what Obamas been doing.
Ridiculous. War has ALWAYS increased the economy, not drained it. It puts people to work, the military needs food, clothing, ammo, parts, weapons, machinery, etc etc etc.
War ALWAYS betters the economy. All that money spent, where do you think it's spent?Some of it, yes, overseas where the troops are, the bulk of it? That's right, right into the American Economy.
How do you think the Great Depression ended? World War 2. It put people to work, more people working, more businesses working, increased tax dollarts to the government, increased flow of money, paychecks, spending. Most economists agree that if not for WW2, the Great Depression would have lasted longer with worse results.
If you really believe that.
You cannot fight 2 wars and cut taxes at the same time, the money has to come from somewhere.
The only thing that benefited the American was machine were the government contractors and oil corporations.
I don't expect you to believe me, and I don't expect anyone to research what I've stated either, because you believe what right wing media tells you.
Some economists—especially Robert Higgs—have wisely challenged that conclusion. Let’s be blunt. If the recipe for economic recovery is putting tens of millions of people in defense plants or military marches, then having them make or drop bombs on our enemies overseas, the value of world peace is called into question. In truth, building tanks and feeding soldiers—necessary as it was to winning the war—became a crushing financial burden. We merely traded debt for unemployment. The expense of funding World War II hiked the national debt from $49 billion in 1941 to almost $260 billion in 1945. In other words, the war had only postponed the issue of recovery.
Leaders advocate policies and legislation that will for good or bad effect the nation.
Unfortunately for us, Obama is not a leader and he never has been.
He's a politician who has an incredible ability to win elections but that's all.
Early in his first term, as the economy was bottoming-out, all Obama had to do was cut taxes and spending and then wait for the economy rebound as it always does following a recession.
He could have taken full credit for what was going to happen anyway, but because Obama is the sort politician who seeks to capitalize on whatever bad news he can blame on someone else, instead of doing the right thing he borrowed a trillion dollars to pay off his supporters.
{snip}
I think Obama did think the economy would recover, as it always did, and he thought he could have taken full credit and claim his Keynesian economics schemes were vindicated. I think he was shocked and angered when the economy did not recover, like his economic team said history told them it would. His economic team did not count on our president being so anti-growth, so anti-business, and so they did not factor that into their predictions.
Obama has been blaming everyone else but himself, ever since June of 2009. But now he is in his second term, and he really does not give a rat's ass if the economy recovers, because he is off the hook, since his blame game worked, and he can now concentrate on his "fundamental transformation" agenda.
Because cutting taxes and spending is working so well in Europe right now. They're making all sorts of cuts and tightening up with all the austerity measures. Spain is experiencing unemployment levels of 27%.
In a recession when NO ONE is spending, the federal government needs to spend, to help stimulate the economy. This is pretty common sense, and it's almost exactly what happened in the Great Depression.
Europe and Spain have different economic histories, different political systems, with different regulations, cultures, and populations, you cannot compare them to the US like that.
That doesn't make any sense. If the presidents sets an agenda and lay out the policies that the Congress refuses to pass, there is nothing to veto and he still doesn't get his agenda nor policies.
Obama could not even get a federal budget bill on his desk, or establish a long term tax policy for the country, even when his party controlled both houses of congress. He is not a leader, he's a bully, and a partisan mud slinger.
So we are still 5 years later and its bushes fault is still the excuse.
So president Bush controlled the economy but president Obama does not . So Obama must be even more incompetent than Bush
Liberals just can't believe "the one" is so incompetent and they have to blame someone.
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.
