rjd970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 23,373
- Likes
- 22,175
This has nothing to do with the "But Bush" response, it has to do with the hypocrisy shown by many on the right with these issues.
And for the record, I would love for Obama to not sign this year's budget until there isn't 1 dollar earmarked for anything other than defense.
How can it have nothing to do with the "but Bush" response when it was a "but Bush" response. You did not give an opinion on the matter one way or the other about how he is pushing his agenda during tough economic times because he knows his popularity is more than likely going to be short lived. All you said about the matter was "but Bush."
So do you approve of how he is pushing his agenda? Do you think it is going to help or hurt the economy in the long run? And my main question, do you think pushing his agenda this quickly (without much precedent that it will work) is putting this country in danger?
I think he is at least putting us in danger that quite possibly could take us away from being a world leader? Danger being the key word. It might work, it might not be that bad, or it might be catastrophic. At best, i tend to think the it might not be that bad is the best possible scenario.
and what % of this was not known before obama took office? any? and why did the market rally significantly when it appeared obama would be more moderate and collapse when it was obvious he would not?
I think the truth is the stock market would have continued lower, regardless of what BO did.
Other then restore confidence in banks, the wheels for what we are experiencing, were set in motion long before BO ever got in office.
my point is all of this was well known. every market crash of the past 100 years (including 1929) except this one has been followed at least by a bear market rally within 3 months. we started to see that rally until obama starting getting socialist. then it reversed. the expectations couldn't have been more negative in january and the economic news has been right with expectations. the banks are getting destroyed and maybe that still happens, but the rest of the market is tanking along with them and i just don't see that happening if obama wasn't going forward with his social programs.
I agree with you 100% Obama has only been in office lest than 50 days give him a chance to undo 8 years of BushYou all are unbelievable. Take some responsibility since you voted for Bush for 8 years and quit trying to pass all of these problems off on Obama and the Democratic party. Things didn't just take a turn for the worse overnight. This all has been in play for quite some time now.
Just because this forum is heavily Republican and you all agree with each other, it doesn't make you right.
I think any president using a crisis to push an agenda is bad, right or left. Obama included. The point still remains that I haven't seen any posts like your above while Bush was running things, that is all I meant. There is a certain level of hypocrisy going on here that needs to be pointed out. All of these repubs need to look in the mirror before they start casting stones.
In the long run, I think the economy will be fine. I think in the short run, it is disasterous to run up deficits like this, and Obama may pay for it the next election. The only way to fix it is with spending cuts. Tax increases makes fiscal sense, and tax cuts promote economic growth. Without massive cuts in spending though, neither work. Obama is going to learn this the hard way, just the way Bush did.
But what you fail to take into account is that he is not "undoing 8 years of Bush", he is continuing down the path of out of control spending and expanding on it!
Serious question. How much money has Obama actually spent at this point?
Most people know the difference between deficit spending because of a Recession, i.e. Reagan, Obama annd deficit spending to finance an unnecessary war, i.e. Vietnam (Johnson), Iraq (Bush). The former usually doesn't affect a President's popularity, the later tremendously.
I thought if one included war costs into Bush's budgets his deficits would be around the $ 1 Trillion mark. Has Obama doubled that? It's hard to imagine how the national debt would more than double under Bush and he never once ran a $Trillion deficit.
I think Bush peaked around 1/2 trillion but he had at least six years with big deficits. Technically, 1/2 of the next deficit is his too but the stimulus package, TARP II, various stimuli and the bloated omnibus go to Obama.
so we are supposed to say he is fiscally responsible because the money actually hasn't been given to people yet? the money is going out, it's been made a law, it's money spent. i could care less what hte timing is.
so we are supposed to say he is fiscally responsible because the money actually hasn't been given to people yet? the money is going out, it's been made a law, it's money spent. i could care less what hte timing is.
OK. Thanks. I see lots of people on here talking about all the money that the new administration has spent and the massive debts he has caused.
Good to get the real perspective on it.