axelrod owns rove & bush

blu

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2009
6,836
780
48
washingtonpost.com

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

:lol::lol::

queue all the deflection
 
It would be useful to post a graph of deficits for the years 1994-2009 so we can see what you are talking about. It would be very useful to include the year just ended for perspective, so we can see how 0bama has improved matters.
 
Americans aren't stupid. They can see that Obama has quadrupled the deficit. They know Chris Dodd and Bawney Fwank caused the housing meltdown.

No amount of bullshitting (or deflection) from Obama or his handlers is gonna' stop the ass kicking the Dems will receive in November.
 
washingtonpost.com

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

:lol::lol::

queue all the deflection

Ok, let's assume you are correct with Bush. He was in 8 years, so how does Obama stack up after one? Oh yeah.

Here's the thing, Bush wasn't a conservative. He never meant to be an internationalist, but 9/11 changed that. To his benefit, he really stepped up. However, he meant to be a domestic president and sort of, kind of tried to do so in last 2 years. Disaster. Probably indicative of what his presidency would have been without 9/11. Obama lite.
 
washingtonpost.com

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

:lol::lol::

queue all the deflection

ok you took a shit. now go wipe your Osama
 
Here's the thing, Bush wasn't a conservative.

You're not kidding. With Medicare Drug, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the No Child Dept of Ed expansion, he was about as conservative fiscally as Barbara Boxer.

Under Clinton, 32% increase in spending in 8 years. Under Bush, 83%. Under Clinton, 91% of net new jobs were in the private sector. Under Bush, 40%.

Worst two-term president in history.
 
It's a bit odd how the biggest gov't program out there-Medicare-only gets cut by Dem presidents, and gets expanded by GOPers. Bush + GOP Congress gave us unfunded Medicare Drug, and McCain tried to add back $400 billion Medicare cuts Obama proposed in HC bill. Meanwhile, Mac was complaining about earmarks and telescopes that don't add up to one tenth of one percent of the spending he wanted to reinstate.

GOP usually wins 65+ year old voters, and that's who receives much of the government's spending. Plus some of them, like McCain, are just no good at Math and Economics.

Problem is too many voters are sheep for either party, and get all worked up by what Hannity or Olbermann tell them. It's very clear though that we do best fiscally with Dem Presidents and GOP/Blue Dog Congresses. GOP also does better when out of power. They've been very good about opposing spending this past year, but the Hastert/Frist Congress of early 2000s passed trillions of spending because they were pussies getting their arms twisted by Karl Rove.
 
So then as I read the logic , because Bush did it, it's okay for us to do it three times more in less time and blame it on Bush. Great excuse for trying to justify out of control spending there.
 
So then as I read the logic , because Bush did it, it's okay for us to do it three times more in less time and blame it on Bush. Great excuse for trying to justify out of control spending there.

So it's ok that Bush increased spending at 2.5 times the rate Clinton did? That he increased the rate of government hiring?

And that he signed, with the approval of a GOP Congress, the small business destroying Sarbanes-Oxley bill?

Under Bush, GOP was about conservative rhetoric and Socialist results. Under Obama, Dems have been about Socialist rhetoric but soon, conservative results because GOP Congress has grown a pair since President Puss went back to Texas.
 
So then as I read the logic , because Bush did it, it's okay for us to do it three times more in less time and blame it on Bush. Great excuse for trying to justify out of control spending there.

So it's ok that Bush increased spending at 2.5 times the rate Clinton did? That he increased the rate of government hiring?

And that he signed, with the approval of a GOP Congress, the small business destroying Sarbanes-Oxley bill?

Under Bush, GOP was about conservative rhetoric and Socialist results. Under Obama, Dems have been about Socialist rhetoric but soon, conservative results because GOP Congress has grown a pair since President Puss went back to Texas.

Don't think there was an endorsment of the Bush Administration in my post, but using failure to justify failure does not seem to be a good enough reason to try and make your policies seem more worthy.
 
so we can see how 0bama has improved matters.

He's made them worse. But in this country we're obsessed right now with the politics of personality, which overemphasizes importance of President and underestimates importance of Congress. Clinton had a phenomenal economic record, much of which came from his own party saying no to Hillarycare, and from Newt rejecting anything that looked like a new spending bill.

Obama's agenda is running into a wall of discontent, he massively overplayed his hand with the arrogant "I won" nonsense last year, and we will have a majority Blue Dog+GOP Congress next year. Rest of this year we'll have some very scared Dems who at most will give him his no public option health care plan.
 
so we can see how 0bama has improved matters.

He's made them worse. But in this country we're obsessed right now with the politics of personality, which overemphasizes importance of President and underestimates importance of Congress. Clinton had a phenomenal economic record, much of which came from his own party saying no to Hillarycare, and from Newt rejecting anything that looked like a new spending bill.

Obama's agenda is running into a wall of discontent, he massively overplayed his hand with the arrogant "I won" nonsense last year, and we will have a majority Blue Dog+GOP Congress next year. Rest of this year we'll have some very scared Dems who at most will give him his no public option health care plan.

I call it the "Team Mentality" the only thing missing on the hill are the jerseys. On a personal level I thought Clinton was a little lacking in the morals department, but it's hard to deny that working with a Republican congress proved to be a good solution for cutting the deficit and building the economy. I honestly feel that most Americans are a little fed up with this nonsense on both sides of the Isle and want to see a little more responsibilithy and lot less of this TEAM nonsense.
 

Forum List

Back
Top