1 year later, Obama still blames bush

[Friday on my mind]

But yet Obama still signed them into law. If he did not agree with the bailouts then should should not have signed it till Congress came up with a better plan. he is the President he has Veto power.

He for sure agreed with the bailouts.You really can't find any economist that will say that without those bailouts our economy would not have probably plunged into a depression and we would have dragged the rest of the world down with us. So no one Bush or Obama had any choice but to support them.

The real problem was how we let ourselves get to that point.We let the derivative market operate totally ungregulated and anyone who tried to warn about was crushed by people Greenspan and others even some of the people on Obama's economic team.They all now say they were wrong about the lack of regulation but not much has changed as far as I know so we might have to go through it all again someday.


And Bush is ahead of the game if he is still not being blamed for things well into Obama's 2nd term, if he gets one, like clinton was still being used as a scapegoat by pubs well into Bush's 2nd term.You heard how the economic crisis at the end of Bush's 2nd term was really clinton's fault lol.

 

[Kingfisher]

You don't exactly see Bush popping out of whatever asshole (Cough Cheney Cough) he's buried in, saying it's not his fault. Where is that dipshit anyway?

 

[HeartBroker]

He's (Mr. O) still got time to turn it all around.

My bet?
A one term bust
:2 cents:

 

[CunningStunts]

He's (Mr. O) still got time to turn it all around.

My bet?
A one term bust
:2 cents:

Agreed, IF there is a viable, smart candidate that runs against him.

But the "it's bad because of Bush" thing is getting really old... the first quality one looks for in a leader is taking responsibility. I haven't seen that one from BHO yet.

 

[skechers]

Agreed, IF there is a viable, smart candidate that runs against him.

But the "it's bad because of Bush" thing is getting really old... the first quality one looks for in a leader is taking responsibility. I haven't seen that one from BHO yet.

What does he have to take responsibility for? He hasn't fucked anything up. He's got people working on trying to fix problems. But has he or his actions really created any new ones?

 

[Hot Mega]

Agreed, IF there is a viable, smart candidate that runs against him.

But the "it's bad because of Bush" thing is getting really old... the first quality one looks for in a leader is taking responsibility. I haven't seen that one from BHO yet.

The first time he made an appointment that didn't work out he acknowledged he screwed up or something.

But what has he screwed up that requires him to take responsibility for...the economy? The dire straits in Afghanistan???

 

[CunningStunts]

What does he have to take responsibility for? He hasn't fucked anything up. He's got people working on trying to fix problems. But has he or his actions really created any new ones?

That's VERY debatable... sometimes the path to hell is paved with good intentions. In my estimation, creating huge bureaucracies and increasing the national debt at a pace 3X that of Bush's last year is not a good way to "fix" anything; rather, it's sending us further down a river of excrement in a Native American water vessel without a means of propulsion.

All of his proposed "fixes" are predicated on one single assumption: Big Government can make things better. This in historical context is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[Facetious]

But the "it's bad because of Bush" thing is getting really old... the first quality one looks for in a leader is taking responsibility. I haven't seen that one from BHO yet.

Agreed. Isn't it unbecoming of a president to mention the shortfall(s) of the preceding administration ? always used to be.

The times they are a changin' :o

What does he have to take responsibility for? He hasn't fucked anything up. He's got people working on trying to fix problems. But has he or his actions really created any new ones?

No, he has "Czars" working ......
and it depends on how you define "fixed"

 

[Facetious]

edit

 

[Facial_King]

I hear what your saying but this is a guy who was asking for personal responsbility in politics, when do we hold him accountable?

I'm no Obama fan (at all - but for different reasons than you, for sure), but I gotta chime in against this kind of extremist nonsense.

You should hold Obama accountable starting at the point when, if it were still Bush president, or McCain, or whatever right-wing darling you would've preferred, when you would've started holding THEM accountable. I'm guessing that would only begin sometime after you were scrounging in dumpsters for stale bread.

:dunno:

 

[skechers]

No, he has "Czars" working ......
and it depends on how you define "fixed"

Czars > Neocons when it comes to recockulous things said about politicoria to incite a factionist outlook among folks, I'll give you that.


I will say this. I would rather an intelligent, rational person take the reigns, or at least function as a figurehead, rather than a comfortable liar.

 

[CunningStunts]

Czars > Neocons when it comes to recockulous things said about politicoria to incite a factionist outlook among folks, I'll give you that.


I will say this. I would rather an intelligent, rational person take the reigns, or at least function as a figurehead, rather than a comfortable liar.

Fair enough.

I'd rather make my own decisions than these pompous morons here in Washington!

The problem is that when the government takes power, even to "solve" a problem, they NEVER give it up... it's the way governments work, like an organism, growing, devouring, until there's nothing left. That is why I oppose so many of these "programs," they just don't have positive results and they take a little more power away from all of us with every dollar.

 

[jasonk282]

I'm no Obama fan (at all - but for different reasons than you, for sure), but I gotta chime in against this kind of extremist nonsense.

You should hold Obama accountable starting at the point when, if it were still Bush president, or McCain, or whatever right-wing darling you would've preferred, when you would've started holding THEM accountable. I'm guessing that would only begin sometime after you were scrounging in dumpsters for stale bread.

:dunno:

I would hold them accountable from day 1. you can only use the "oops I'm new" for so long.

After all Obama wants us to hold him accountable.
Just doing what my Commander in Chief was asking.

 

[HELLRAISER]

What's really ironic and hypocritical here is how NeoCons who pretend to be genuine fiscal conservatives blame Obama for 8 years of Bush's wasteful spending and mistakes while not holding Bush accountable and responsible for the terror and errors he made on his watch. That's why the NeoCon grievances don't have any weight, integrity and credibility because they were either silent, complacent and even cheerleaded Bush during his year tenure of error and terror.

 

[Facetious]

I will say this. I would rather an intelligent, rational person take the reigns, or at least function as a figurehead, rather than a comfortable liar.

Trouble is finding that person, will he or she descend from the heavens or rise up from the very earth of which we tread ? :angels: :tongue:

 

[jasonk282]

What's really ironic and hypocritical here is how NeoCons who pretend to be genuine fiscal conservatives blame Obama for 8 years of Bush's wasteful spending and mistakes and not hold Bush accountable and responsible for the errors he caused on his watch.

No we are blaming Obama for spending 3x's as much as Bush did in his final year, which is an actual FACT.

the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002,
$378 billion in 2003,
$413 billion in 2004,
$318 billion in 2005,
$248 billion in 2006,
$162 billion in 2007,
$410 billion in 2008

Obama's annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future.

 

[skechers]

Trouble is finding that person, will he or she descend from the heavens or rise up from the very earth of which we tread ? :angels: :tongue:

 

[Jagger69]

You're comparing apples and oranges, Jason. I don't see his statement about the financial crisis as "blaming" anyone. There's a huge difference between extending an olive branch when it comes to working together in a bipartisan fashion and stating a fact. Is what he says about the financial mess not indeed true? And, if so, how does stating that we should put "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics" represent a conflict?

Yes, we are in a financial mess. Yes, it was inherited. Yes, let's work together to fix it. Sounds good to me. :dunno:

 

[jasonk282]

I would hold them accountable from day 1. you can only use the "oops I'm new" for so long.

After all Obama wants us to hold him accountable.
Just doing what my Commander in Chief was asking.

^I am just doing what he wants us to do Jagger, in Obama's own words.

 

[YMIHERE]

Bush hid the cost of the wars as off budget items. He increased the deficit by four trillion dollars not 1.85 trillion. When decisions are make with long turn consequence, the decider has a long turn responsibly for them. Most of the current defict is the result of things already in the pipe line when Obama took office.


With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.

It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtml