Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy

[ClosedCaption]

What was the usual response for any proposal Bush made from the Democrats?

"I Doesn't Go Far Enough!!!"

Remember that the next time you accuse Bush of increasing the debt.

oh yeah I remember that....not

I sent that msg from my Blackberry.....and it was "It Doesn't Go Far Enough".

We heard that garbage from them for 8 years and you can't remember????

What do you have......Alzheimer's???????

Every single frikken time Bush said he wanted a program that spent billions of dollars the Democrats always....without fail....

...."it doesn't go far enough".

When he started reacting to all of the screams that he wasn't taking care of the troops, sending them into war without personal armor, or up-armored Hummers, the Dems claimed he wasn't doing enough, spending enough.

I remember the turmoil that was raised here at Ft Campbell when journalists went on a witch-hunt looking for peeling paint and mildew. That started a massive rebuild of this instillation that we're still in the middle of today. Billions spent on rebuilding barracks and other post facilities. And the Democraps constantly criticizing everything that seemed out of place.

Who actually spent us into near bankruptcy the last 10 years????

Bush sure seemed to have a lot of help and I don't remember Obama voting against any spending.

First, putting the same lie in bold doesnt make it true.

Second, Putting troops into a war zone without armor is what in your eyes? Enough armor?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is it Reagan's fault that you are clueless?

You must be pretty young or at least young enough to not have worked and paid taxes during the Reagan years. Reagan DID rasise taxes, mostly on the middle class while cutting taxes for the wealthy. He also eliminated tax write offs for auto and mortgage loans which hit the middle class disproportionately.

The GOP is distorting Reagan's tax legacy - Sun Sentinel

Newsflash: Ronald Reagan Raised Taxes (You Idiots) | Firedoglake

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010




.

Yeah, I'm young enough to know that 28% is less than 70%.
Reagan eliminated tax deductions for mortgages?
When did that happen?
Was it when he raised rates from 70% to 28%? LOL!

Thanks for confirming the fact that all the GOP cares about are what the tax rate is for the WEALTHY. Since I was a blue collar worker raising a family back then I know that Reagan RAISED what I had to pay in taxes.

.

Why don't you let us know what your AGI was in 1980 and in 1988?
Then you can go to this link......


The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2011

And prove your claim.

 

[oreo]

Further proof that the average American voter is a fool.

No Kidding--when Barack Obama--borrowed and spent 1 trillion dollars in order to micro-manage the economy-with a promise that it would create millions of jobs--which then turned into saving government workers jobs--and then to Nancy Pelosi referring to unemployment checks as economic stimulus---Obama at that time bought and paid for this economy. IOW--Obama now owns it--and he's owned since the day he signed off on that 1 trillion dollar economic stimulus bill.

 

[mudwhistle]

oh yeah I remember that....not

I sent that msg from my Blackberry.....and it was "It Doesn't Go Far Enough".

We heard that garbage from them for 8 years and you can't remember????

What do you have......Alzheimer's???????

Every single frikken time Bush said he wanted a program that spent billions of dollars the Democrats always....without fail....

...."it doesn't go far enough".

When he started reacting to all of the screams that he wasn't taking care of the troops, sending them into war without personal armor, or up-armored Hummers, the Dems claimed he wasn't doing enough, spending enough.

I remember the turmoil that was raised here at Ft Campbell when journalists went on a witch-hunt looking for peeling paint and mildew. That started a massive rebuild of this instillation that we're still in the middle of today. Billions spent on rebuilding barracks and other post facilities. And the Democraps constantly criticizing everything that seemed out of place.

Who actually spent us into near bankruptcy the last 10 years????

Bush sure seemed to have a lot of help and I don't remember Obama voting against any spending.

First, putting the same lie in bold doesnt make it true.

Second, Putting troops into a war zone without armor is what in your eyes? Enough armor?

If you knew anything about war as I do, you go with what you've been issued and you can bitch about it later.

And if you want I can find numerous examples for you. Course you could too....but you'd rather just call me a liar instead. It's easier that way.

 

[mudwhistle]

Bush Offers Prescription Drug Plan

By Scott Lindlaw
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2001; 12:19 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON –– President Bush offered a quick fix for helping the elderly get prescriptions and said a broader Medicare overhaul will come later. To immediate criticism that his plan doesn't go far enough, however, Bush said he's open to compromise.


Bush has proposed a $48 billion block grant to provide prescription drugs to low-income seniors and others with very high drug costs. Democrats believe the Bush plan doesn’t go far enough.

This is all Bush heard when he was President. Everything he did wasn't enough, didn't go far enough, wasn't enough spending.

I heard it too many damn times for it to be a figment of my imagination.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...on_Drug_Proposal_Gets_Lukewarm_Reception.html

 

[ClosedCaption]

I sent that msg from my Blackberry.....and it was "It Doesn't Go Far Enough".

We heard that garbage from them for 8 years and you can't remember????

What do you have......Alzheimer's???????

Every single frikken time Bush said he wanted a program that spent billions of dollars the Democrats always....without fail....

...."it doesn't go far enough".

When he started reacting to all of the screams that he wasn't taking care of the troops, sending them into war without personal armor, or up-armored Hummers, the Dems claimed he wasn't doing enough, spending enough.

I remember the turmoil that was raised here at Ft Campbell when journalists went on a witch-hunt looking for peeling paint and mildew. That started a massive rebuild of this instillation that we're still in the middle of today. Billions spent on rebuilding barracks and other post facilities. And the Democraps constantly criticizing everything that seemed out of place.

Who actually spent us into near bankruptcy the last 10 years????

Bush sure seemed to have a lot of help and I don't remember Obama voting against any spending.

First, putting the same lie in bold doesnt make it true.

Second, Putting troops into a war zone without armor is what in your eyes? Enough armor?

If you knew anything about war as I do, you go with what you've been issued and you can bitch about it later.

And if you want I can find numerous examples for you. Course you could too....but you'd rather just call me a liar instead. It's easier that way.

That's what they did..The troops went to war. But that wasnt my question...Let's try again...You bitched about Dems bitching that the troops not having enough armor. Is no armor enough armor in the republican eyes? Or your eyes?

 

[mudwhistle]

First, putting the same lie in bold doesnt make it true.

Second, Putting troops into a war zone without armor is what in your eyes? Enough armor?

If you knew anything about war as I do, you go with what you've been issued and you can bitch about it later.

And if you want I can find numerous examples for you. Course you could too....but you'd rather just call me a liar instead. It's easier that way.

That's what they did..The troops went to war. But that wasnt my question...Let's try again...You bitched about Dems bitching that the troops not having enough armor. Is no armor enough armor in the republican eyes? Or your eyes?

The problem was we had flack vests but not actual ballistic vests with what we called "chicken-plates" in them. Nobody ever thought about equipping every single soldier with personal armor. Our Army was geared towards battle in deserts and forests, not in cities.

A little personal note from my own experience:

While in Somalia in 93' my unit requested APCs to protect us from IEDs and small weapons fire. We were refused. The result was 99 casualties and 18 dead during the Blackhawk Down episode involving Task force Ranger.

This happened all the way back 10 years before we went into Iraq. Clinton did nothing. What was his excuse???

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you knew anything about war as I do, you go with what you've been issued and you can bitch about it later.

And if you want I can find numerous examples for you. Course you could too....but you'd rather just call me a liar instead. It's easier that way.

That's what they did..The troops went to war. But that wasnt my question...Let's try again...You bitched about Dems bitching that the troops not having enough armor. Is no armor enough armor in the republican eyes? Or your eyes?

The problem was we had flack vests but not actual ballistic vests with what we called "chicken-plates" in them. Nobody ever thought about equipping every single soldier with personal armor. Our Army was geared towards battle in deserts and forests, not in cities.

A little personal note from my own experience:

While in Somalia in 93' my unit requested APCs to protect us from IEDs and small weapons fire. We were refused. The result was 99 casualties and 18 dead during the Blackhawk Down episode involving Task force Ranger.

This happened all the way back 10 years before we went into Iraq. Clinton did nothing. What was his excuse???

You're going to dodge that question all day huh?

I'm trying to figure out why you are attacking dems for saying no armor wasnt enough. Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

 

[mudwhistle]

Another bit of information:

The cost of up-armoring Humvees is staggering.

But the primary cause of deaths in Iraq was from IEDs against which even an up-armored Humvee is ineffective.

So the Bush Administration started the MRAP program.

Since the insertion of the new MRAP vehicles into the field of operation deaths have gone down drastically wherever they are used.

 

[mudwhistle]

That's what they did..The troops went to war. But that wasnt my question...Let's try again...You bitched about Dems bitching that the troops not having enough armor. Is no armor enough armor in the republican eyes? Or your eyes?

The problem was we had flack vests but not actual ballistic vests with what we called "chicken-plates" in them. Nobody ever thought about equipping every single soldier with personal armor. Our Army was geared towards battle in deserts and forests, not in cities.

A little personal note from my own experience:

While in Somalia in 93' my unit requested APCs to protect us from IEDs and small weapons fire. We were refused. The result was 99 casualties and 18 dead during the Blackhawk Down episode involving Task force Ranger.

This happened all the way back 10 years before we went into Iraq. Clinton did nothing. What was his excuse???

You're going to dodge that question all day huh?

I'm trying to figure out why you are attacking dems for saying no armor wasnt enough. Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

I'm not avoiding anything.

You claim they didn't say it, now you claim they did.

Make up your mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

My original point was that the Dems screamed for personal armor, up-armored Humvees, a total makeover of all military installations, the sky was the limit.

My point was the Dems belly-aching helped bust the bank and raise the debt.

You wanna go off on some tangent all the while calling me a liar.

I think you're smoking something....or just light-headed from all of the fumes of that shit you keep shoveling.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The problem was we had flack vests but not actual ballistic vests with what we called "chicken-plates" in them. Nobody ever thought about equipping every single soldier with personal armor. Our Army was geared towards battle in deserts and forests, not in cities.

A little personal note from my own experience:

While in Somalia in 93' my unit requested APCs to protect us from IEDs and small weapons fire. We were refused. The result was 99 casualties and 18 dead during the Blackhawk Down episode involving Task force Ranger.

This happened all the way back 10 years before we went into Iraq. Clinton did nothing. What was his excuse???

You're going to dodge that question all day huh?

I'm trying to figure out why you are attacking dems for saying no armor wasnt enough. Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

I'm not avoiding anything.

You claim they didn't say it, now you claim they did.

Make up your mind.

Heres the question again since you keep missing it

Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

 

[mudwhistle]

You're going to dodge that question all day huh?

I'm trying to figure out why you are attacking dems for saying no armor wasnt enough. Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

I'm not avoiding anything.

You claim they didn't say it, now you claim they did.

Make up your mind.

Heres the question again since you keep missing it

Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

I didn't miss it.

It's just.........dumb.

 

[IndependntLogic]

My original point was that the Dems screamed for personal armor, up-armored Humvees, a total makeover of all military installations, the sky was the limit.

My point was the Dems belly-aching helped bust the bank and raise the debt.

You wanna go off on some tangent all the while calling me a liar.

I think you're smoking something....or just light-headed from all of the fumes of that shit you keep shoveling.

Not to get in the middle a lover's quarrel but both parties have blown enough money to point fingers at.
Bush got us in a couple wars AND lowered taxes concurrently. Oops. He spent money like a drunken sailor.
Seems like Obama is intent on following suit.

Independents have the same reaction whenever we hear one side or the other, talking about how "the other guys are to blame"

 

[mudwhistle]

My original point was that the Dems screamed for personal armor, up-armored Humvees, a total makeover of all military installations, the sky was the limit.

My point was the Dems belly-aching helped bust the bank and raise the debt.

You wanna go off on some tangent all the while calling me a liar.

I think you're smoking something....or just light-headed from all of the fumes of that shit you keep shoveling.

Not to get in the middle a lover's quarrel but both parties have blown enough money to point fingers at.
Bush got us in a couple wars AND lowered taxes concurrently. Oops. He spent money like a drunken sailor.
Seems like Obama is intent on following suit.

Independents have the same reaction whenever we hear one side or the other, talking about how "the other guys are to blame"

Bush signed it so he catches some of the blame.

However, my point was that not only aren't the Dems innocent bystanders, but complacent if not bent on manipulating the system in a malicious manner using the media to badger Bush into making decision he normally wouldn't have. They not only helped spend the money but had raising the debt as a goal.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm not avoiding anything.

You claim they didn't say it, now you claim they did.

Make up your mind.

Heres the question again since you keep missing it

Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

I didn't miss it.

It's just.........dumb.

Fair enough...which makes me wonder why you shitted on Dems for wanting more body armor for the troops in the first place. Seemed to be a bullshit reason to shit on anyone from the start. Which it was

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.

....the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.

Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Doesn't really matter, does it? Bush is not going to be running in 2012.

 

[Trajan]

Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.

....the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.

Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

something for you to consider...oh and this is from the New Republic Magazine, Ruy Teixeira, member of the Brookings Inst. etc....;



Pundits chronically underestimate the extent to which poor economic performance matters among sympathetic Democratic constituencies and chronically overestimate the influence of rhetoric or policies that are deemed insufficiently liberal. The latter may horrify liberal activists and writers—a very small part of Obama's base—but it is the former that saps the enthusiasm of tens of millions of ordinary rank-and-file Obama supporters who are very sensitive to their pocketbooks and the state of the job market. Reagan's base was so enthusiastic in 1984 not just because he did and said conservative things but because he was riding a wave of growth and jobs into that election. They could look at their candidate and say: "See, his policies work; screw you, you dumb liberals." Obama supporters can make no such claim.

Perhaps the latest abysmal jobs report, released on Friday, will persuade Obama's team that they need to pay attention to this factor. The deal they are trying to strike on the debt may or may not be a good one and may or may not provide some marginal political help among swing constituencies. But if they want his core supporters to be there in big numbers come November, 2012, it's time to get back to job #1: jobs.



Back To Basics: The Deficit And Obama's Reelection | The New Republic

 

[mudwhistle]

Heres the question again since you keep missing it

Was no armor enough armor for the troops?

I didn't miss it.

It's just.........dumb.

Fair enough...which makes me wonder why you shitted on Dems for wanting more body armor for the troops in the first place. Seemed to be a bullshit reason to shit on anyone from the start. Which it was

You're still talking like an idiot.

I just said earlier that IEDs are the primary cause of death in Iraq and Afghanistan but you still wanna talk about body-armor.

Body-armor will not protect you from an IED.

 

[mudwhistle]

Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.

....the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.

Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Doesn't really matter, does it? Bush is not going to be running in 2012.

The point is Obama has shifted from being the answer to our problems to a victim.

If he can get away with this he may have a chance of being re-elected, but it's still a long till the election. Do you think he can get away with it till then?