I think you probably read the first half. I think he had the opportunity to fix the oncoming recession but instead decided to do what is popular. What is popular you might ask? Cutting taxes because no one, not even liberals, like paying taxes. So yes, in part, Bush is a major contributor to the current economic state. Not to mention the housing scam. I don't want to talk about that though because it disgust me.
BTW, a certain someone would be disappointed if I didn't post this:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-u...post1059891740 (Opposition to Obama grows - strongly)
Last edited by Jryan; 10-22-11 at 04:44 PM.
Here is an interesting paragraph from that article
You are right, most people don't like paying taxes and currently 47% don't pay any FIT. Doubt seriously that anyone voting in 2012 are going to worry about inflation adjusted GDP numbers, the Bush record, or concerns about how much Bush added to the debt. What is more important is what Obama has done the last three years and the results I have posted which continue to be ignored.Democrats like to claim the 1990s were a golden age while the Bush years have been disastrous. But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Bush inherited a recession. The dot-com bubble had burst in 2000, and the economy was sinking even before the shock of 9/11, the corporate scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mr. Bush's original tax-cut proposal was designed in part as insurance against such a downturn.
Let me know when you come up with the 14.8 trillion that you claimed?
Depends, how long are you going to blame Obama and ignore the 14.8 trillion dollars Bush spent?
You ignored him ignoring the damaged economy.Let me know when you come up with the 14.8 trillion that you claimed?
Line 2009 2010 2011
I II III IV I II III IV I II
1 Gross domestic product
2009 -6.7 -0.7 1.7 3.8
2010 3.9 3.8 2.5 2.3
2011 0.4 1.3
Last edited by Conservative; 10-22-11 at 05:05 PM.
Note to liberals: Even though Bush may have sucked, it's apparent BO sucks more.
I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.