Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
As I have already pointed out, most of the budgetary stuff passed onto Obama was enacted by the Democrats with Obama's blessing and signed by Bush at Obama's behest.

This is the horseshit part. TARP was envisioned by Paulson and Bernake, Bush signed it, Obama had nothing to do with it whatsoever. BUSH and his crew added 350 billion to the debt in September 2008. For you to somehow try and say that this is Obama's fault or his responsibility is so ******* lame, Okie, it's not even funny.

Perhaps Tarp 1, but Tarp 2 Bush only did it at the behest of Obama. Besides that, who was in charge of Congress? It was the Democrats.

Quote:

BUSH signed TARP, his people came up with it, and to say that the crash and the response were somehow OBAMA'S fault? Unbelievable, you truly live in a fantasy world where facts don't matter. Nobody agrees with you on this at all.

Cycloptichorn

I am not absolving Bush of blame, but Bush at least signed Tarp 2 at the behest of Obama, because Bush considered himself a lame duck and was already trying to install the policies of the incoming Obama as a favor to Obama. And Tarp 1 is dwarfed by Obama's later stimulus spending, so it is entirely obvious that most of the 2009 deficit belongs almost entirely to Obama.

Also, I have pointed this out already, but it is slow to sink into some people, the economy is greatly influenced by confidence in the future, and the future with Obama was not viewed with much confidence going clear back to mid 2008 when it became clear that Obama would beat Hillary and he was up on McCain in the polls, and then things got worse with the November election, and it has continued to become worse throughout Obama's administration. The point I am making here is that Obama was having a very negative effect upon the markets and the economy even before he took office, because his proposed policies were not viewed favorably by the business world. I think it is highly likely that if McCain had been elected, the economy would have behaved differently, essentially more positively even before he took office and continuing until now.

Look, the business world and a free market economy do not respond favorably to a president that has Marxist sympathies and beliefs, there just can be no denying of that.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Has any President ever lived up to expectations?

William Henry Harrison.

He promised in his inaugural address that he wouldn't run for a second term. And he didn't.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Has any President ever lived up to expectations?

William Henry Harrison.

He promised in his inaugural address that he wouldn't run for a second term. And he didn't.

Neither did Polk... who said he'd expand the United States from sea to sea, and in so doing effectively grabbed over a MILLION square miles, doubling the size of our nation in a single term. This guy essentially robbed more land than all but a handful of countries have.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY DID NOT REDUCE OR RESCIND TARP OR ANY OTHER EXPENDITURES SIGNED BY BUSH. THEREFORE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THOSE EXPENDITURES ALLEGEDLY INHERITED BY THEM FROM BUSH.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

So dummy, does that mean Bush is responsible for 9/11 since he didn't change any of the Clinton policies to stop terrorism? or does this logic only work to blame democrats in your world view?

3 Replies

@parados,

That would include okie in that dummy class.

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados said:

Quote:

So dummy, does that mean Bush is responsible for 9/11 since he didn't change any of the Clinton policies to stop terrorism? or does this logic only work to blame democrats in your world view?

In a quite real way Bush dismantled Clinton's policies attacking terrorists. Clinton had employed a three pronged offensive against terrorism, viz., cruise missiles from Navy ships in the Indian sea or near the Arabian penninsula, Air Force bombers from the Air Force bases in Saudi Arabia, and Marine strike forces ready to leave from Navy ships in the aforemention areas, each to be deployed at a moment's notice to attack terrorist bases and personnel. Within the first month of Bush's first term the entire program was ordered to stand down, with the reasoning that anything done by Clinton was an anathema.

In other words, when Clinton left office he had closed and locked all the windows and doors, and George Bush went around unlocking and opening all of them in the first month of his presidency. If it were my choice, George Bush would be tried and executed for treason.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joe from chi-town mentioned

Quote:

William Henry Harrison.

He promised in his inaugural address that he wouldn't run for a second term. And he didn't.

He also caught a bad cold while standing uncoated during his inaugural and died 32 days later.

Tippecanoe and Tyler too! Tyler was to only US president to have held elective office in another country's government, having been elected to the Congress of the Confederate States of America.

0 Replies

Are the dems EVER going to take responsibility for their failures?

Now they are blaming Bush for their candidate slipping in the polls in Mass.

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/after_obama_ral.php

Quote:

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.

Gee, could it be that their candidate has run a lousy campaign?
Since Bush hasnt been President for a year, how is it Bush's fault?

0 Replies

So now we have an MSNBC commentator advocating that Mass voters commit fraud to keep the repub candidate from winning.
Why doesnt that surprise me.

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/16/ed-schultz-id-cheat-keep-brown-winning/

0 Replies

Are the dems this scared of losing in Mass?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_massachusetts_senate

Quote:

BOSTON " A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.

The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts

So the dems would be willing to bypass a vote on the health care bill if the repub wins in Mass.
Why are they afraid of a repub winning?

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

because they're the enemy

boy you ask easy questions

ask another

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Yes they are, MM. The Repubs will get their core vote for Brown. The Dems are fearful that they will not be able to turn out their young voters like they have before. And there are more voters then ever who describe themselves as Independent and who seem to be leaning towards Brown.
It will be close. Really close.
I think Coakley will win, but I would not want to bet on it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So dummy, does that mean Bush is responsible for 9/11 since he didn't change any of the Clinton policies to stop terrorism? or does this logic only work to blame democrats in your world view?

YES! Bush is responsible for 9/11!

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

Kuvasz, "If it were my choice, George Bush would be tried and executed for treason."

I'll second that. Cheney also!

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

More recently: Ronald Reagan campaigned on a platform of bringing Military Strength to this country... a few years and a few Trillion later we emerged as the world's ONLY superpower. Not everyone's happy about it in retrospect; but the man did indeed do what he promised to do.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Neither did Polk... who said he'd expand the United States from sea to sea, and in so doing effectively grabbed over a MILLION square miles, doubling the size of our nation in a single term. This guy essentially robbed more land than all but a handful of countries have.

If you have a guilt complex for your property having been robbed from indigenous peoples, Bill, then go back to Europe, wherever your ancestors came from, so that you will feel better.

1 Reply

@okie,

You hear that, O'Bill: go back to Europe! LOL

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

More recently: Ronald Reagan campaigned on a platform of bringing Military Strength to this country... a few years and a few Trillion later we emerged as the world's ONLY superpower. Not everyone's happy about it in retrospect; but the man did indeed do what he promised to do.

I believe this is a very misleading - and entirely inaccurate - interpretation of events. Given the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. was the world's "only superpower" (whatever that means) with or without Ronald Reagan.

Reagan did indeed spend billions (not trillions) to restore a defense extablishment sorely in need of reinvestment after the post Vietnam interrregnum and the neglect of the Carter years (we had only three ammunition loads for the six aircraft carriers in each fleet - and no backup supply). Moreover his spending and the direct challenge with which he confronted a decaying Soviet system had some beneficial effect on hastening the fall of this inhuman and oppressive regine.

However, even without it, the USSR was headed for the ash heap of history.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think you forgot to highlight the "very misleading"- and "entirely inaccurate" parts George. I suppose if you reach, misleading is subjective enough to get away with; but everything I wrote is 100% accurate.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know