1 year later, Obama still blames bush
- Thread starter jasonk282
- Start date
Here is another story! Read it and weep Democrats, the upswell against you has begun. Harry Reid is next.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...s-media-silent-update-dems-plan-2nd-stimulus/
Like I thought....Nester6...c'mon, you're better than this....you claim Obama tripled the debt...but from you link...
Keep in mind this is an opinion piece....also....hardly proof...:wave2:
Yeah really!
We got a new boss at work and 3yrs later he still blamed the old boss for all of his(new boss) failings.
:thefingerMega, I believe this is fairly convincing.Regards
There was outrage from what I read.
I know Regan, rightfully, got knocked for ignoring aids.
I think Reagan's Economic theories works. What didn't work was massive military spending. What Reagan did with military spending is a crime.
He will pay for that crime because people don't understand that the military spending is what caused the deficit spending. Tax revenues actually went up. So, had he not spent large sums on military he would have had a surplus.
(To the haters out there. No, I'm not a "fan" of Regan.)
You do know that strategy worked, i.e., it caused the fall of the USSR and freed millions of people from communist oppression? Or do they still teach about how much of a failure communism was in the 20th century in schools these days? How many people it impoverished, oppressed and killed?
Actually, the quote itself is a primary source. (That I'm quoting from) Providing you with a link to a secondary source would be helpful to you. I understand this, but I haven't seen you convince me to help you. So I'll let you do your own homework. I just state my fact, you can do with it as you please. (Bing is one option.)
Yes, the point I was making was that Obama was whining that he inherited a problem. I have other points I could make, but that was the only one I was making.
I watch CNN. I haven't read the Health Care bill (I'm guessing you haven't either.). I'm told from the people on CNN that the Health Care bill will create significant spending and increase taxes.
So, now I'm adding to my point.
I think the president is whining that he had to be saddled with problems that existed before he came into office.
I think that the health care bill will create deficit spending. I assume that will lead to raising taxes. I'm also assuming from what I have heard reported on CNN that the taxes will be garnered from placed that may restrict growth in the economy.
I also think that the bill overall is corrupt. It is a back room deal. It is an attempt to ram through legislation without even so much as the courtesy of open debate.
___
Hey, I respect your opinion. I voted for Obama. I dislike George W. Bush. (I actually think George H. Bush was a pretty good president. I think Clinton had style). I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Last edited:
You do know that strategy worked, i.e., it caused the fall of the USSR and freed millions of people from communist oppression? Or do they still teach about how much of a failure communism was in the 20th century in schools these days? How many people it impoverished, oppressed and killed?
The last political science class I took in college taught that this claim is made, but has not been proven. I haven't done the analysis myself. So, I can't answer it one way or the other.
I do believe that supply side economics works, but spending has to be limited.
It worked, trust me. The USSR could no longer remain viable as an economic power speding so much on the arms race and Gorby realized the only way out was to abandon the race and make some overtures to the West.
And the sad part is that we (the US) are doing the same thing now, but to ourselves... spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Political-induced state suicide...:2 cents:
I don't care about order of sources and I never claimed an order. Usually so that people are reading the exact same things those who make claims provide their reference.
People make claims all the time about what they think they heard, think they read or what someone else says someone said.
Obviously in the case of the thread starter, he made a claim and referenced some source that in no way supports his claim.
In this case, you've attributed a series of statements to someone bearing a fairly loose context at some point in time.
Forgive my skepticism but I've seen far too many times where individuals attribute statement or circumstance to others but the reference they use supports neither. Again, the original post in this thread would be the classic example. Some say Obama said he would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...based on what they thought they heard or read when he never said that and it's been refuted countless times.
Now you've either copy/pasted or retyped some statement you attributed to Obama (entire context unclear) then suggest I do my own research. In my view, trying to find the exact collection of words you've assembled to see if this or that is what you're referencing amounts to fishing...
Certainly not worth the time for the simple exercise of playing semantics with someone.
IMO it's always smart to put things in perspective and avail people of stark realities. But of course, if someone is inclined to view today's circumstances as no different from any other even though by most standards it is...it's probably a waste of time debating that person to begin with.
The minute I stop blaming G.W. Bush for the economy is the minute the economy stops sucking.
Tricle down economics pretty much did nothing except funnel money into the hands of fewer people at the top. It was the biggest economic disaster of any of our lifetimes here and is the biggest reason we are in trouble now. I'm amazed almost anybody could except for a small sliver of the popluation could still think it was a good idea after we have decades to see it's failure.
JayJohn85
Banned
Man he needs as long as a president can get for the problems.....His opposition in next election will make all sorts of promises but all they will do is continue, chop and change here and there what he is at.
I guess so. Any reason why Coakley lost that seat so badly? I would have thought after Kennedy a sure pair of hands would have kept the Democrats in control. Obama's health reform is going to faced it's stiffest test yet.
Well, people need to remember...GOPers played the obstructionist card in '93 and here we are 16 years later the same thing, "...the president wants to come between you and your doctor...blah, blah, blah...our plan is better....elect us..." then they turn into lesbians <don't do dick>.
Winning elections is not just about ideas...it's about the right salesman to sell the idea and the right marketing strategy. GOPers learned this years ago...Demos are still clueless and Coakley barely has a pulse.
The best product doesn't always win in the marketplace but the product with the best marketing plan most always does.
Thanks for sharing.
That conflicts with what I was taught about economics. Lowering financial restrictions on corporations creates more investment and opportunity. This creates jobs and increased wealth across the board.
Similar threads
