Not sure why you’re making less than in 2008. Being burdened with more bills seems to be something you’re responsible for since your tax bill went down (or your rebate) went up under Obama. Not sure what you’re doing that you would be worried about it being outsourced to Asia? Finally, your home being worth only 70% of what you paid for it was because of Bush and not because of anything Obama did or didn’t do.
Are you this simplistic over global warming, autism or the weather forecast?
Not simplistic.
Obama isn’t getting the job done. Period.
He promised me the unemployment rate wouldn’t go over 8%. It’s been at around 9% his whole term.
And, yeah, he keeps these awful trade treaties in place, so my company looks at the slave labor market in China and figures it’s easier to outsource. (I blame both parties for free trade, really. It’s an idiotic idea.)
Point is, your boy had three years, and things are more effed up than when he got in. Time for new leadership. Pointing the finger at the last guy isn’t leadership. Blaming the Earthquake in Japan isn’t leadership. Blaming the Libya crisis isn’t leadership.
It’s simple in that asking the Reagan question, the answer comes off as “no”, things have not gotten better since this clown’s been in office.
Something else Reagan said which was awesome, which we can apply to Obama.
“Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose your job.
Recovery is when Mr. Carter (or Mr. Obama in this case) loses his job.”
Home price runups had nothing to do with Bush. They were the result of Greenspan’s holding interest rates low, which caused an asset bubble in real estate, and of mortgage securitization which took away bank risk and gave them the incentive to offer mortages to people who clearly could not afford them. None of this was initiated by the Bush administration. The Fed is an independent agency, and the chairman of the Fed had been there since Clinton. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cheerleaded by Democrats, and Democrats also had oversight responsibilities for them.
In fact, Bush administration officials went to Congress several times to warn them about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac taking on too much risk and extending themselves too far, but Congress refused to listen. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank both gave multiple speeches in which they declared Fannie and Freddie to be healthy and sustainable, and they demagogued the issue by claiming that Republicans were trying to use scare tactics to prevent poor people from taking part in the home ownership revolution.
You can make plausible claims for lots of failures of the Bush administration. What you can’t do is claim that it was responsible for the housing boom.
Assuming you’re correct about this, Sam–I have no idea about the facts or the responsibility, you realize you’re knocking the hell of out RR’s entire argument about “Obama’s watch, Obama’s responsiblity.” According to him, Bush needs to take the hit for housing prices because he was so incompetent and weak about coercing Greenspan to take different positions on the prices of housing. Either there are some things beyond a President’s control or there aren’t, and we’re either going to be reasonable and consistent about blaming them for everything that happened during their terms or we’re not. Where do you stand on this issue?
Back to Palin… Does anyone know how her movie debut did?bdid it go the way of ‘Altal Shrugged’?
The Tomatometer has no information yet. The IMDb says it won’t officially be released until the 15th, but here is their External Reviews page.
You’d seriously blame Obama for all of that? :rolleyes:
When the economy is going well, and the House is held by the Republicans, we hear about how spending bills originate there. When there are problems, and the White House is held by the Democrats, it becomes their fault.
Uh, yeah, actually, I do.
I blame him for not being a leader and not knowing what he is doing.
All I see from the man is a lot of finger-pointing and no leadership.
Victory has a thousand fathers, and failure is an orphan.
So what else is new.
Let’s be honest, if the economy turns around in the next year, Obama will be re-elected easily and kudos to him.
Bush brought us out of the 9/11 recession, Clinton brought us out of Bush-41’s recession, Reagan brought us out of Carter’s recession. they probably benefitted from other people’s policies and hard work, but it was their watch.
Ford, Carter and Bush-41 had crappy economies, and the voters found their asses the easiest ones to take it out on. Fair, unfair, that’s what happens.
I guess if Obama was more of a leader, I’d have more respect for him. He just seems to be engaging in finger-pointing now.
I think the GOP’s transparent tactics are not unknown to a large segment of likely voters.
You are prejudiced to see what you want to see, that much is very clear. Here’s a website, just for you. Enjoy.
He advocated increasing revenue by closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies in addition to spending cuts, which is a far better than the plan proposed by the Republicans. How can you ask the middle class to make all the sacrifices while the top two percent reap all the benefits and give up nothing? That is going to be a tough sell in 2012.
Guy, I saw that a few years ago… frankly, it’s pathetic…
I think Obama needs to stop with the blame game, and find Harry Truman’s sign somewhere there in a White House closet. It’s the one that says “The Buck Stops Here”.
Actually, what he did was play the class warfare card. Now he wants to tax the corporate jets he encouraged companies to buy in the Stimulus in the first place.
The Republicans have made it clear, they aren’t going to go along with ANY tax increases. As long as they control congress, that’s just how it’s going to be. So you might as well let the cuts fall where they may, and when we still have a deficit, when there is nothing else you can possibly cut, then come back and talk about revenues.
So, giving up and letting the Republicans call all the shots is your idea of “exhibiting strong leadership”?
As opposed to making a fight that you can’t possibly win because NO ONE wants to go along with it.
When you have a major political movement called the “Taxed Enough Already” Party, and they just swept your party out of congress, um, really, advocating more taxes? Don’t think so.
This is funny, that you think Obama would exhibit strong leadership by signing on to the opposition’s agenda. I’d think you’d give him leadership credit for opposing them, however effectively or not. Whether he will prevail, of course, is another story, but it just cracks me up that you distinguish between his policies and yours (excuse me, those of the T.E.A. party, which you claim to despise) and claim that he is showing poor leadership skills by not following the T.E.A. party’s lead. Try again, guy.
What terrifies you, of course, is that he might find enough popular support to tax the hell out of millioniares and leave the tea party suckups to their overlords out in the breeze.
I’d personally have no problem if he let the Bush Tax cuts expire. But the Republicans played chicken with him on that one and he blinked. Now he’s going to try to get some taxes in when he’s in the position where all the House has to do is attach their cuts to the debt ceiling legistlation- oh, let’s say around July 20 or so- and he either has to veto it (and risk default and a second dip in the recession) or accept it.
So here’s his real problem. The Republicans have him pegged.
Well, gee, let’s look at that. It’s not the Tea Party’s agenda, it’s everyone’s agenda. EVERYONE thinks we need to get the deficit under control and everyone thinks we need to get the spending under control. Because unlike Greece, no one is going to bail us out.
To the point, though. Bush lost control of Congress in 2006. Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994. They still both managed to remain fully in command of the debate. Clinton won the budget battles. Bush managed to initate a surge and get TARP passed. They both managed to co-opt the positions of the oppossition and regain the momentum.
Neither one made analogies to their kid’s homework and got called the D-word by one of their supporters.
This is overly simplistic. Everyone agrees we need to get the deficit under control, but everyone agrees on how. With taxes at their lowest as a percentage of GDP right now (at least over the last 70 years), the smart money is on raising them.