Bush leaves us in worse financial shape than we imagined

[Gunny]

I can't wait until the people take back Washington. This is going to be the 1920s-1930s version 2.0.

We gotta get rid of the last vestiges of the Bush admin first.

Starting with Obama and his administration? Jury's still out on that one. It looks like he's going to perform the classic bellyflop from the high dive, but I'll give him the benefit of doubt until he does.

 

[Gunny]

Hey Pete, Bush fucked things up totally for eight years. Dems were far to compliant and complicit, but the buck is on Bush's desk.

A LOT of what Bush had to deal with can be traced directly to Clinton. Strike one. Try again.

 

[Ravi]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

 

[Annie]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

Considering how he's following in the footsteps, why would he deviate?

[/URL]
[/IMG]

 

[Anguille]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

You're already off topic now, according to a few.

 

[Ravi]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

You're already off topic now, according to a few.

LOL! They twist in the wind, the weasels.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks for your continual attempts at telling me what I think, Gunny.

Not too hard to do when you put the stupid shit out here.

 

[Gunny]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

Shall I edit the thread title? "Ravi Is Going to Try and Dis Bush Every Day Until Hell Freezes Over Because She's Intellectually Dishonest" so it more aptly reflects what's going on here?

Fact: Every time CLinton's name was brought up during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, some koolaid drinking goober like you started wailing that Clinton wasn't President anymore, Bush was.

I'm merely pointing out the double-standard? Don't like it? Don't do it. Not too hard to figure out, even for you.

 

[Gunny]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

You're already off topic now, according to a few.

She started off-topic.

 

[Ravi]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

Shall I edit the thread title? "Ravi Is Going to Try and Dis Bush Every Day Until Hell Freezes Over Because She's Intellectually Dishonest" so it more aptly reflects what's going on here?

Fact: Every time CLinton's name was brought up during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, some koolaid drinking goober like you started wailing that Clinton wasn't President anymore, Bush was.

I'm merely pointing out the double-standard? Don't like it? Don't do it. Not too hard to figure out, even for you.

So, Gunny, you rather liked the creative accounting or what? It sure sounds like it...since you've done nothing but express your disdain for Democrats on this thread.

Go ahead and edit it as you wish, but face the fact that you are a partisan hack and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Gunny]

Sweet! A little article about Bush's "creative" accounting and the subject is first turned to Obama and then Clinton. FDR can't be far behind.

Shall I edit the thread title? "Ravi Is Going to Try and Dis Bush Every Day Until Hell Freezes Over Because She's Intellectually Dishonest" so it more aptly reflects what's going on here?

Fact: Every time CLinton's name was brought up during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, some koolaid drinking goober like you started wailing that Clinton wasn't President anymore, Bush was.

I'm merely pointing out the double-standard? Don't like it? Don't do it. Not too hard to figure out, even for you.

So, Gunny, you rather liked the creative accounting or what? It sure sounds like it...since you've done nothing but express your disdain for Democrats on this thread.

Go ahead and edit it as you wish, but face the fact that you are a partisan hack and intellectually dishonest.

Let me clear this up for your befuddled mind. How many times have I said "Bush spends like a Democrat?" More times than could actually count, and always to the eerily silent crowd on the left hereabouts.

But then, that doesn't really make you look so good does it? The fact remains I have been critical of Bush's spending habits from Day One of his administration.

So who exactly have I been partisan to? Bush? Or the Democrats he was emulating?

Your lameass, baseless accusation falls kind of flat on its face just like you in light of the ACTUAL facts, not the ones you dream up.

I can only suggest you try to keep up with the rest of the world. Obama is now President of the US. Bush is not. When Obama puts us further in the hole that Bush ever thought of on his best, liberal-thinking day, you'll want to have all your little excuses lined up like little ducks so I suggest you quit worrying about what was and work on your rhetoric that is sure to follow.

 

[garyd]

Creative accounting by the government goes back decades and the notion that Bush was any worse than anyone else is just absurd. How do you think we got a balanced budget under Clinton when the mount of debt actuall increased every year he was president?

 

[auditor0007]

This unstimulus will delay that from happening as it involves far too much federal micro management.

Maybe.

But I can tell you one thing, there is no way in the world, the obama administration believes what you said about the stimulus delaying a recovery....because if they DID, they would have gone that route of doing nothing....for CERTAIN....

because their GOAL is to make Obama a 2 term president and delaying a recovery in our economy, will not make him a two term president.

So, as said, you can bet your BOTTOM DOLLAR, that the Obama team honestly BELIEVES that this stimulus will bring us in to a recovery quicker, than doing nothing....

as said before, time will tell all....

I am not so sure, one way or the other...

Care

Dems blame the Republicans and Republicans blame the Dems. Jesus Christ, there is enough blame to go around to all of them. Anyone thinking differently is just playing the partisan polics game 101.

As for Obama and the stimulus package; he's absolutely clueless. He doesn't have any idea if it will work, but he can't think of anything else, because this is what he promised us. He's just going to pray it works. My biggest problem with the package is that it was just thrown together with little thought. We're in for a long downturn; things are not going to bounce back right away, and even when they do, it is likely to be a slow turnaround. Obama and Congress could have taken more time to weed out the unnecessary stuff and put more emphasis on the things that are important like infrastructure spending.

 

[sparky]

well i agree Auditor

the only card our government can play now is to throw $$$ at the problem, and hope it helps

vs. actually confronting the market/governance ideological relationship

imho, it would be far more fruitful in the long run, than the quick $$$ fix now, but much harder to address

meanwhile, the residents of our lifeboat continue to play pin the blame on the helmsman as our titanic economy's bow goes down

all of them felt entiteled to ride it, all of them where given the possible opportunity to go first class, few if any questioned the crafters of it, and most of them saw no harm in having it assume full speed ahead.....

 

[Munin]

Shall I edit the thread title? "Ravi Is Going to Try and Dis Bush Every Day Until Hell Freezes Over Because She's Intellectually Dishonest" so it more aptly reflects what's going on here?

Fact: Every time CLinton's name was brought up during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, some koolaid drinking goober like you started wailing that Clinton wasn't President anymore, Bush was.

I'm merely pointing out the double-standard? Don't like it? Don't do it. Not too hard to figure out, even for you.

So, Gunny, you rather liked the creative accounting or what? It sure sounds like it...since you've done nothing but express your disdain for Democrats on this thread.

Go ahead and edit it as you wish, but face the fact that you are a partisan hack and intellectually dishonest.

Let me clear this up for your befuddled mind. How many times have I said "Bush spends like a Democrat?"

Isn't that a bit easy to say that? So, the reason that Bush failed is because he behaved like a democrat?

Democrats don't blame the failure of Carter because he behaved like a republican, because that is ridiculous to do that (I don't see much difference with Bush: a guy that was elected twice by a vast majority of republicans).

Spending is not a word that belongs to the democrats, the spending that Bush did was supported by a majority of republicans (the GOP that you are referring too and if the GOP party isn't the republican party anymore then I don't know which party is the republican party).

"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms – despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."

Bush spending up to 5 times more than Clinton

 

[Gunny]

This unstimulus will delay that from happening as it involves far too much federal micro management.

Maybe.

But I can tell you one thing, there is no way in the world, the obama administration believes what you said about the stimulus delaying a recovery....because if they DID, they would have gone that route of doing nothing....for CERTAIN....

because their GOAL is to make Obama a 2 term president and delaying a recovery in our economy, will not make him a two term president.

So, as said, you can bet your BOTTOM DOLLAR, that the Obama team honestly BELIEVES that this stimulus will bring us in to a recovery quicker, than doing nothing....

as said before, time will tell all....

I am not so sure, one way or the other...

Care

Dems blame the Republicans and Republicans blame the Dems. Jesus Christ, there is enough blame to go around to all of them. Anyone thinking differently is just playing the partisan polics game 101.

As for Obama and the stimulus package; he's absolutely clueless. He doesn't have any idea if it will work, but he can't think of anything else, because this is what he promised us. He's just going to pray it works. My biggest problem with the package is that it was just thrown together with little thought. We're in for a long downturn; things are not going to bounce back right away, and even when they do, it is likely to be a slow turnaround. Obama and Congress could have taken more time to weed out the unnecessary stuff and put more emphasis on the things that are important like infrastructure spending.

While the GOP talks fiscal conservatism, I have yet to see them put into practice. I didn't agree with much of Bush's fiscal policies. Clinton played a shell game with ink and the left has since attempted to perpetuate the myth he balanced the budget.

The point here to me is the pot calling the kettle black as if it's something different.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hell no, Bush was no worse than any other President in any way. That is why we succeeded in Iraq and Afghanistan so quickly, and why the economy is in such rosy shape.

 

[Gunny]

Hell no, Bush was no worse than any other President in any way. That is why we succeeded in Iraq and Afghanistan so quickly, and why the economy is in such rosy shape.

Really?

Iraq was a problem BEFORE Bush.

The economic meltdown has been coming for decades. That started before Bush as well.

The Taliban harbored bin Laden and refused to turn him over after 9/11. They got what they deserved.

That would be strike three, you're out. Better luck next time.

 

[Chris]

Hell no, Bush was no worse than any other President in any way. That is why we succeeded in Iraq and Afghanistan so quickly, and why the economy is in such rosy shape.

Bush was the worst president in American history.

 

[elvis]

Hell no, Bush was no worse than any other President in any way. That is why we succeeded in Iraq and Afghanistan so quickly, and why the economy is in such rosy shape.

Bush was the worst president in American history.

Kirky lewinsky back for more