The economy is't going to be fixed tomorrow smart one. Of course it is going to take time. Just like it took time to get where we are. Doesn't matter what Bush did to have a law passed, the fact of the matter is the Congress passed it. There is a seperation of powers for a reason. You need to read the constitution to figure out what each branch of the government does, maybe you'll learn something. The country will be fine, so long as doomsday sayers like you shut your mouths. We're going to let Obama and his congress screw us up even more, than someone with some sense will come in and fix the issue. Blaming all this on Bush is like if I blamed you for the traffic accident that happened across the globe in another country. Doesn't make sense does it? Yes, our country will be better than we were before. Take a look at the past, free market conquers all this crap. It's the nature of a free market to have this kind of thing happen every so many years. But, I guess since you think the President passes bills into laws you've probably not read that part about history have you? Bush did his best. Now Obama is doing his best. That is all you can ask for of a man. You think the country made a mistake electing Bush, I think we made a huge mistake electing Obama. You need to study up on our economy and look how it's been since, well, we were founded. Mainly the 1900's. It's the liberals that got us here. They lobbyed the banks to give peopel who couldn't afford it huge loans with variable rates. Now they really can't afford it, and no one is to blame but themselves and the liberals for that one. Now, don't get me started on political appointees. Shall we talk about the Treasury Secretary Obama appointed. Hmmm, the guy in charge of the treasury, and the IRS, is a tax evader. Well, that makes sense. What about the 3 appointees that withdrew from the nomination process because they are tax evaders. The measures used for interrogation in those prisons, I wouldn't call torture. But I'll humor your statement, and caveat it with, do you really think it didn't happen under anyone else? Seriously? All countries use extreme interrogation methods. Just because others haven't been stupid enough to leave a huge paper trail and take pictures, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you believe that, you are truely naive. You really truely are trying to pin everything on Bush. He doesn't control spending there smart guy. It's the DEMOCRATIC (for 6 of his 8 years) congress that does. So, if you want to point fingers, look at them. Like I said, Presidents don't make laws. They also don't spend money. It's all the retarded ass earmarks and social projects that suck up our money. Where is this change we heard so much about? There's been so much money earmarked already that that was just a lie. Same with bringing a change to the white house. It's still the same old players, most from Clinton's administration, or the congress. The only difference is the party affiliation. Please bring some real arguments to the table. One's backed by fact. But, like I said earlier, I know how much you liberals just love to hide from them.
You have heard of a Presidential 'VETO' haven't you? So, you do admit this country will be in crisis for the forseeable future? That is an agreeable position since Bush got us in this mess (his specialty). The President signs them into law, which is what Bush did. Either Bush and Obama are responsible, or they are not responsible. I don't know how you determine one President has the power to mess things up but another doesn't and they both hold the same position. If you are calling me liberal and basing your argument on that, then it shows you have a very biased argument (not based on merit). What happens if I am not liberal at all and see Bush as a complete asshat? There is a reason why Bush had such low approval ratings when he left office, and it wasn't just liberals.
Nooo, I haven't. (sarcasm) For a second there I thought you could read. IT WASN'T BUSH. When most of the country wants something, at least he was representing them with most things. Most people wanted the Patriot Act. Most people don't want Obama spending more and more money Since you are spouting liberal rhetoric, as seen on CNN, all your posts in this thread have been liberal leaning, and you completely refuse to listen to facts, but only what CNN and the rest of the news agencies want you to listen to, I think it's a safe assumption that you are a liberal. Not a biased argument. I am neither. I'm pretty much right down the middle. I have liberal views, and I have conservative views. I don't vote a party line. I don't go with issues on a party line. I form my own opinions based on research and FACTS. Something that liberals seem to be scared of. So when are you going to study our economy and understand that we have been heading down this road for longer than when Bush was a president. Try the Clinton era. And even, in your scenario, we have been since Bush was President. You are failing to acknowledge all the money the DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS spent. Money that Bush had no choice but to sign (most of it) in order to get money for things he wanted. When are you going to stop trusting the media so readily? Approval ratings are skewed, very badly, in the way that person wants to make them.
So the people wanted warrantless wiretaps. People wanted stricter bankruptcy laws. People wanted to invade Iraq despite having nothing to do with 9/11. Sometimes, a strong leader makes the right choice regardless of what an uninformed public thinks. Bush is neither strong nor competent. He failed completely. It appears you look at the world in an either/or fashion. Believe it or not, there is more to the world than conservative/liberal. I never said it didn't start before Bush. I said Bush was a MFer for 8 years for not doing anything to stop it. He could've led a push to revoke the Commodity Futures Modernization Act or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or the Monetary Control Act. Instead of protecting Americans he sought to take American's rights away and stoke fears with the... 2007 National Defense Authorization Act 2006 Un-American Military Commissions Act 2005 The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act 2003 The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act So, are you admitting Bush is a weak, spineless, political creature who sold out to a Democractic congress to destroy the economy? Sounds like a fool to me. Besides, you keep complaining about facts and yet yours are not right. Republicans had significant control and joined Bush in destroying the country. A Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency The US doesn't get in this kind of mess if the President isn't a complete son-of-a-***** along with the Congress. Obama has barely been in office and yet with all the clear evidence of how much Bush wrecked our future, people can't wait to blame Obama. It is stuff like this that tells me this country hasn't learned jacksquat over the past 8 years and will continue straight for the crapper.
If Bush wanted to stop any of that, he would have been killed. Stop being naive, the president makes very few decisions and congress is merely ceremonial now. Do you think the president doesn't have someone above him?
Of course (well, maybe not killed, more like an Eliot Spitzer). But... you have a lot of true believers on this board, so I try to discuss politics on their terms.
This just in in my senator's newsletter. Where is the change? Why should I give him time when all he is doing is the opposite of what he said? He said he was goin to cut the deficit in half within his first 4 year term (looking like it's going to be the only one). There is more, but, I don't want to bore you with more facts. True believers? I'm just tired of spineless people like you bashing Bush becuase it's the in-thing to do. You're sitting there blaming Bush for something, when, in fact it was the Congress. Bush wasn't spineless. But, if you knew anything about how laws and bills are passed, you would understand it is all about compromise. If he didn't compromise on a lot of things, he wouldn' thave had anything passed.
Maybe I spoke too soon. If you believe the President, the government, the courts, the military, or the banks personally care about you or your family, that is what I describe as a true believer. If that describes you, then I'll discuss politics on those terms. Hostlonestar, Mia, GRIM, guru-seo These are good examples. I use them as a barometer for the health of the economy. If they still believe (keep the faith), the bottom hasn't hit yet.
You ignored my post just like I thought you would. <<<<------Not a true believer as your definition says. Sorry to say that. Of course they don't care personally. They care for the overall good of the nation. Which, is a concept that seems to be lost on you. Some of us think our government is full of a bunch of corrupt crack heads and that they aren't fit to lead themselves out of apaper bag, let alone a country. But, with people like you, that probably don't do anything about it, not even contacting your senators, believing the media, actually believing Obama is helping anything, or his congress, than you, are the "true believer" under your definition. You ignore facts, ignore things that are not able to fit into your idea of how the world is, and are, overall, not very knowledgable of the US Government and things that go on, especially behind the scenes. Not very knowledgable about how the economy works, just plain not knowledgable about a lot of things, unless they fit inside your idea of how things should be.
You claim to know what I'm thinking and what my background is. You didn't address any of the laws Bush signed or ignored in my previous post. Yet, you keep saying Bush was not personally responsible for his own behavior regarding signing those laws or using his veto power. Yet, you say Obama IS personally responsible for the very things you say Bush is not personally responsible. Until you can reconcile that illogical position, it's hard to understand on what basis you are making your argument.
You've been ignoring my posts this whole time. Not the whole one, but, parts of them that don't coincide with your views. Because, Obama is the one pushing for all these things. Bush didn't push for most of the things he signed into law. It's not illogical, as a matter of fact, it makes perfect sense if you can look at it from outside your idea of how things are/should be. If Obama can stop spending money for 12 minutes, we may get somewhere. But, instead, he's pushing for taxing the working middle class even more, small business owners even more, and spending more and more money. Even though he built his campaign around the average working man/woman, and cutting the deficit.
Once again, you're saying Bush is not personally responsible as President. Well, why have a President if they are just going to pass the buck? Yet, Obama is supposed to be held responsible for his actions? You have a clear bias and prejudice. I am trying to figure out what it is based on... Are you seriously trying to tell me Bush didn't create this mess? If you are just going to ignore the laws, statistics, charts/graphs, and facts that I have presented, then what is the point of this discussion? You present nothing but opinion. I can read that anywhere.
Pay particular attention to the upswing in Reagan/Bush years. Then ask yourself who was in Congress. Look at the Clinton years and again, ask yourself who was in Congress. Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't know how to read a simple graph? Or are you just ignoring reality?
I see. I don't believe any of those 'departments' have any particular empathy for the general populace. I don't see how you believe those whom you listed, believe otherwise, though.
Again, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. When your party doesn't control a congress, you have to compromise in order to get things you want passed. The president doesn't make the laws. Have you noticed who's been in congress when all the money gets spent? Or can you just not read a graph and compare your other source, about who was in congress/president for which years? Whereas, Obama's party controls congress. And he's the one pushing forward with all this spending and not getting anything, other than spending more money elsewhere, out of it. He's merely a puppet placed their by the democratic leadership. They knew, in order to get any of their social programs and other things on their agenda passed, they needed a democratic president. So they bought of the media, which wasn't hard considering how liberally biased they are, and put the Messiah there. That charesmatic pathalogical liar. And bias? No. Fact finder? Yes.
They just don't listen to facts if it doesn't fit their worldview. They can indulge in the fantasy that their interpreation is the only correct one, but I have to be realistic that many possibilities are likely. And, ultimately, you can't argue with results. So, you're saying it's all Congress' fault, eh! Okay the 107th Congress the Republicans had a majority in the House (2001). The 108th and 109th Congress, the Republicans had a majority in both the House and the Senate (2003-2007). So, are you saying the Republican-controlled Congress created this mess and Bush was too weak to control his own party as President? Sounds like a sorry-excuse for a President to me. I can accept this for the time being. So, are you saying the President doesn't have power over the economy? Then why blame Obama? Or, are you saying Congress has the power? In that case, Bush had a Republican majority in both the House and Senate from 2003-2007. What did that supreme idiot do with it? He oversaw the rise and fall of the biggest financial bubble in recorded history. Bush had every opportunity to stop this. He didn't. Did Bush veto any of the spending bills? If he did, then he vetoed Republican-passed legislation. Did Bush sign these spending bills? If so, are you saying he isn't responsible for what he did with his own hand when signing these bills into law? I don't understand why Bush and the Republicans never take personal responsibility for their actions. They are either pointing fingers, blaming someone else, or creating some imaginary enemy for their screw-ups. I think it's why people are sick of them and why they got voted out all over the place for 2009.