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.
That's funny. Really funny. Obama continued TARP which was started by Bush. And Bush spent $2 Trillion on the Iraq War. $2 Trillion dollars. Bush lost $40 billion on pallets shipped to Iraq. What's more, Bush's Iraq War included providing health care for Iraqis. And under Bush, a completely unfunded Medicare Part D was passed with no Republican complaint whatsoever.
The money was packed onto pallets inside a heavily guarded New York Federal Reserve compound in East Rutherford, New Jersey, trucked to Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington, and flown by military aircraft to Baghdad International Airport...the New York Fed shipped about $40 billion in cash between 2003 and 2008. In just the first two years, the shipments included more than 281 million individual bills weighing a total of 363 tons. But soon after the money arrived in the chaos of war-torn Baghdad, the paper trail documenting who controlled it all began to go cold. NY Fed's $40 Billion Iraqi Money Trail
Ten years ago this week, Republicans enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state since the creation of Medicare in 1965 by adding a huge unfunded program providing coverage for prescription drugs to the Medicare program. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-busting/?_r=0
The actual cost of the Iraq war was $806 billion according to the Congressional Research Service.
And as for Medicare Part D which you say passed with "no Republican complaint whatsoever"...Seriously? Bruce Bartlett, economist who served in the Treasury department under Reagan called it the "worst legislation in history." Here is what Rush Limbaugh said about it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh
The Democratic Party is the party of entitlements; but the Republicans come up with this Medicare prescription drug plan that the polls said that the public didn't want and was not interested in. That is not conservatism.
It's amazing that you guys are still trying to anally force feed that talking point, in spite of all overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Where is this overwhelming evidence that most conservatives objected to Obama because of his skin color rather than his policies? Good luck grasping at straws here.
Apparently experience doesn't matter much, does it? When comparing the performance of President Obama to George Walker Bush, there really is no comparison.
You are right. There is no comparison. Bush was a much better leader with better performance with the cards dealt him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Good old fashioned brains. One was a "legacy" student at the Ivy League, the other worked his way in.
Since Obama has never released his high school or college grades we can only assume he was an affirmative action admission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
A President is often only as good as the team they assemble around themselves. Bush was surrounded by neoconservatives who told him exactly what to do, and he had little, or no, original thoughts of his own. President Obama has made concrete changes for the better, whether or not they were someone else's ideas does not matter, as he was the driving force behind their implementation. President Bush implemented nothing that benefited anyone other than the wealthiest 1%.
This is such a cliche of liberal group think straight out of the DailyKos.
Obama's brain is Valerie Jarrett and his cojones were Axelrod and Emmanual; part of that great Democrat political team known for their good humor and fair dealings {cough}.
Apparently experience doesn't matter much, does it? When comparing the performance of President Obama to George Walker Bush, there really is no comparison. There are many reasons one can draw from for why Pres. Obama has outperformed him.
1) Many say the job of Governor of Texas is largely ceremonial in nature, as real power resides in the House. Cannot confirm if this is true. He went from this straight to the White House. Pres. Obama was in the Illinois Senate before becoming a state Senator.
2) Completely privileged upbringing, where everything was handed down to Bush, and he never had to earn anything, versus having to work ones way up and not being given preferential treatment along the way.
3) Good old fashioned brains. One was a "legacy" student at the Ivy League, the other worked his way in.
A President is often only as good as the team they assemble around themselves. Bush was surrounded by neoconservatives who told him exactly what to do, and he had little, or no, original thoughts of his own. President Obama has made concrete changes for the better, whether or not they were someone else's ideas does not matter, as he was the driving force behind their implementation. President Bush implemented nothing that benefited anyone other than the wealthiest 1%.
I left state legislative experience out of the other Presidents in the last 50 years, so I didn't include Obama's either. Funny how you choose to focus on W. You just can't bring yourself to admit that Obama was a political neophyte completely unprepared for the reality of the office... Compared to W or any other President of the last 50 years...
You can't confirm what you say about the Texas Governorship, yet you say it anyway. Typical. Just like you claim inside knowledge of the workings of the Bush administration. In one breath you say Bush had no ideas of his own, but immediately say it doesn't matter whether anything Obama did was someone else's idea. How's that whiplash doing?
Medicare part D? Only benefited the 1%? If you say so. NCLB? Right, for all those rich entitled brats in private schools... Oh wait....
Since Obama has never released his high school or college grades we can only assume he was an affirmative action admission.
And while he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he never wrote an article. I wonder why?
He has also claimed to have beeen a "Constitutional Law Professor." He wasn't. That was a lie. He never taught a class in Constitutional Law. He was a Lecturer only.
Where is this overwhelming evidence that most conservatives objected to Obama because of his skin color rather than his policies? Good luck grasping at straws here.
Oh please. The main thrust of my criticism was directed at the severely tired "Marxist/socialist" comment, and I think you know that.
And while he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he never wrote an article. I wonder why?
He has also claimed to have beeen a "Constitutional Law Professor." He wasn't. That was a lie. He never taught a class in Constitutional Law. He was a Lecturer only.
Obama lectured in legal race-related topics such as discrimination issues, not the constitution.
And while he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he never wrote an article. I wonder why?
He has also claimed to have beeen a "Constitutional Law Professor." He wasn't. That was a lie. He never taught a class in Constitutional Law. He was a Lecturer only.
Slight correction.... Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, not its editor. Cruz was the editor, which is an honor that goes to the sharpest mind who can write articles. The president doesn't have to do anything.
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.
