Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.
Yep. Folks like to brush under the rug the unfunded Prescription Drug Plan, the brainchild of DeLay, Frist, and Bush. They also like to ignore the pork producing K-Street manipulations, which were absolutely corrupt, and which were again the brainchild of DeLay, Frist, and Bush. They like to forget that Bush couldn't find his veto pen for YEARS as DeLay and Frist were running up the debt. They also hate to mention that the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush, who opted not to veto such spending. And never mind two wars paid for out of discretionary spending with absolutely no plan to pay for it.
Democrats have of course contributed since coming to office. Instead of starting with the Infrastructure plan that Obama is now pursuing (which is a very GOOD use of money and a very GOOD way to produce jobs) they started out with more bailouts and welfare for the rich. Should they lose the House in Novemember, it will be because they deserve to.
But I'm not convinced the GOP deserves a shot at the House yet either. Under DeLay, Frist, and Bush the GOP made it clear that they are the party of borrow and spend which even more economically irresponsible than tax and spend. Given the choice between the two, I'll pick a party of tax and spend every day over a party of borrow and spend.
BOOOSHHHH. However bad Obama and the Democrats are...BOOOSSSHHHHH.
Plenty of people objected to Bush's policies on steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, and his failure to wield the veto pen when he should have.
But every one of those bad policies has been matched and then some by Team Obama and teh Democrats. Bush was bipartisan and tried to work with the Dems after they won control. This is the result.
The GOP has learned its lesson (we hope). The failure of some mainline party candidates should attest to that. Certainly allowing the Dums another 2 years to screw things up even more thoroughly is sheer insanity.
I'm going to add this:
What's with the desperate attempts to save George W. Bush's reputation?
His spending, his failures on immigration and port and border security, his early failures in Iraq, his near abandonment of Afghanistan, his contributions to the debt, etc. should be enough to make even the most dyed in the wool Republican partisan blush, and yet we've got people that claim to be "Conservatives", but who are in reality unabashed GOP Partisans, falling all over themselves to save his reputation.
Or are they being paid to do it? I know that paid posters on political boards are hardly rare.
Obviously the problems we are facing are no more ENTIRELY Bush II's fault then they are ENTIRELY Obama's, fault.
But this thread starts out, I think begging a question
The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.
Of COURSE Obama inherented an economy in shambles.
And of course, Bush II's policies contributed to that mess.
NObody I know is dense enought to imagine that Bush II was entirely responble for this economy, but two land in Asia and tax cuts to billionaires certainly play their part in the overall mess we're in and those do have to be laid at the feet of the Bush II admin and his supporters in Congress.
Including, I note, MANY democrats.
This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.
Oh for crying OUT LOUD?
Not Obama's fault? Obama has been in on these destructive policies whether he was a Senator or the president.
You can't going to be able to sell that line!
It's true.
It omits the idea that the GOP also participated in a spending binge and lost credibility with voters over it.
But other than that, the Dums are the big spenders. And if Obama is still campaigning on the idea he's going to clean up the mess, then it's his own mess he better clean up.
I'm going to add this:
What's with the desperate attempts to save George W. Bush's reputation?
His spending, his failures on immigration and port and border security, his early failures in Iraq, his near abandonment of Afghanistan, his contributions to the debt, etc. should be enough to make even the most dyed in the wool Republican partisan blush, and yet we've got people that claim to be "Conservatives", but who are in reality unabashed GOP Partisans, falling all over themselves to save his reputation.
Or are they being paid to do it? I know that paid posters on political boards are hardly rare.
That Bush spent too much no one is debating.
That Obama has made Bush look like a piker is also not up for debate.
But to blame Bush for Obama's spending is like blaming a jay walker for a murder committed by another. It's ludicrous.
Obviously the problems we are facing are no more ENTIRELY Bush II's fault then they are ENTIRELY Obama's, fault.
But this thread starts out, I think begging a question
Of COURSE Obama inherented an economy in shambles.
And of course, Bush II's policies contributed to that mess.
NObody I know is dense enought to imagine that Bush II was entirely responble for this economy, but two land in Asia and tax cuts to billionaires certainly play their part in the overall mess we're in and those do have to be laid at the feet of the Bush II admin and his supporters in Congress.
Including, I note, MANY democrats.
This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.
Oh for crying OUT LOUD?
Not Obama's fault? Obama has been in on these destructive policies whether he was a Senator or the president.
You can't going to be able to sell that line!
Perhaps if you learned to read you'll notice that ed was commenting on the fact that Bush and Obama both share the blame for this mess. Or were you merely looking to mischaracterize what he said to fit your own agenda?
Either way, you probably aren't worth the time either. Partisan hacks that are only looking to absolve their guys from blame are part of the problem.
I'm going to add this:
What's with the desperate attempts to save George W. Bush's reputation?
His spending, his failures on immigration and port and border security, his early failures in Iraq, his near abandonment of Afghanistan, his contributions to the debt, etc. should be enough to make even the most dyed in the wool Republican partisan blush, and yet we've got people that claim to be "Conservatives", but who are in reality unabashed GOP Partisans, falling all over themselves to save his reputation.
Or are they being paid to do it? I know that paid posters on political boards are hardly rare.
That Bush spent too much no one is debating.
That Obama has made Bush look like a piker is also not up for debate.
But to blame Bush for Obama's spending is like blaming a jay walker for a murder committed by another. It's ludicrous.
Quick, point out where I'm blaming Bush for Obama's spending. Both share the blame for wasted Billions, capital "B", spent bailing out businesses that should have been left to fail.
What folks seem to want to forget is that Bush has a hand in this too, just as Obama does.
That Bush spent too much no one is debating.
That Obama has made Bush look like a piker is also not up for debate.
But to blame Bush for Obama's spending is like blaming a jay walker for a murder committed by another. It's ludicrous.
Quick, point out where I'm blaming Bush for Obama's spending. Both share the blame for wasted Billions, capital "B", spent bailing out businesses that should have been left to fail.
What folks seem to want to forget is that Bush has a hand in this too, just as Obama does.
Whoops! Strawman argument. No one said you were blaming Bush for Obama's spending.
Fail. Time out.
What you are doing is exculpating Obama by pointing out "they all do it" or words to that effect.
No go. Not gonna let that one pass.
No one argues Bush was even a conservative, and he made plenty of mistakes. And the GOP got taken to the woodshed not once but twice.
But Obama & Co have surpassed Bush's bad policies by a country mile, and failed to implement his good ones.
That Bush spent too much no one is debating.
That Obama has made Bush look like a piker is also not up for debate.
But to blame Bush for Obama's spending is like blaming a jay walker for a murder committed by another. It's ludicrous.
Quick, point out where I'm blaming Bush for Obama's spending. Both share the blame for wasted Billions, capital "B", spent bailing out businesses that should have been left to fail.
What folks seem to want to forget is that Bush has a hand in this too, just as Obama does.
Whoops! Strawman argument. No one said you were blaming Bush for Obama's spending.
Fail. Time out.
Exactly! That's what they do. When they can't defend their own, they play the "they all do it" card. Try to "spread the blame around" and deflect away from their own.
Nope, you're wrong.The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats
Nope, you're wrong.The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats
The deficit he inheritance was created by the recession which started under Bush, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush era tax cuts.
Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
https://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
He's Mr. SheMan's anal baby
[Personally, I'm voting for divided government because that's the only thing that seems to work. So bring on a GOP House as long as the GOP doesn't control the Oval Office. Bring on a Democratic House as long as the Democrats don't control the Oval Office. Down with one party control of the Legislature and Executive.
[Personally, I'm voting for divided government because that's the only thing that seems to work. So bring on a GOP House as long as the GOP doesn't control the Oval Office. Bring on a Democratic House as long as the Democrats don't control the Oval Office. Down with one party control of the Legislature and Executive.
I was utterly shocked when the Republicans had dictatorship of government that I didn't see radical changes in abortion, welfare & social services, or restoration of the 2nd Amendment. They were as placid as Democrats.
[Personally, I'm voting for divided government because that's the only thing that seems to work. So bring on a GOP House as long as the GOP doesn't control the Oval Office. Bring on a Democratic House as long as the Democrats don't control the Oval Office. Down with one party control of the Legislature and Executive.
I was utterly shocked when the Republicans had dictatorship of government that I didn't see radical changes in abortion, welfare & social services, or restoration of the 2nd Amendment. They were as placid as Democrats.
