• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs

PBO isn't killing jobs at a record rate, he has been stemming the bleeding from the Bush term:
[/url]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Bush was .... magically ... not responsible for either recession under his watch.

Do you see why it's hard to take you seriously here?

When someone (wrongly) blames Obama for an economic situation that would have happened regardless of his policies, you point out their mistake.

Then, when someone (correctly) points out that Bush also inherited an economic situation that would have happened without his policies, you suddenly lose all sense of perspective and deny that such a thing could be true.

If you're going to be wrong, at least be consistently wrong.
 
Do you see why it's hard to take you seriously here?

When someone (wrongly) blames Obama for an economic situation that would have happened regardless of his policies, you point out their mistake.

Then, when someone (correctly) points out that Bush also inherited an economic situation that would have happened without his policies, you suddenly lose all sense of perspective and deny that such a thing could be true.

If you're going to be wrong, at least be consistently wrong.

I think you missed a couple posts. The point was, according to some, Bush inherited one recession from Clinton, and the democratic congress was at fault for the other.
 
Do you see why it's hard to take you seriously here?

When someone (wrongly) blames Obama for an economic situation that would have happened regardless of his policies, you point out their mistake.

Then, when someone (correctly) points out that Bush also inherited an economic situation that would have happened without his policies, you suddenly lose all sense of perspective and deny that such a thing could be true.

If you're going to be wrong, at least be consistently wrong.

I think you missed a couple posts. The point was, according to some, Bush inherited one recession from Clinton, and the democratic congress was at fault for the other.


Yuppers, you missed some of the convo, Right. :rofl
 
Yuppers, you missed some of the convo, Right. :rofl

Fair enough.

Do you think the recession/job losses in 2001 were Bush's fault?

I remember having this argument with a lot of people prior to the 2004 election, and it was amazing how many Kerry voters were adamant that they were entirely Bush's fault. I'd be interested to see how many of those people still hold that view today.
 
Fair enough.

Do you think the recession/job losses in 2001 were Bush's fault?

I remember having this argument with a lot of people prior to the 2004 election, and it was amazing how many Kerry voters were adamant that they were entirely Bush's fault. I'd be interested to see how many of those people still hold that view today.


No, I do not. I was mocking the illogic of those simultaneous arguments.

However, there is an argument to be made that the jobless recovery that was a feature of that recession/recovery were due to Bush's policies. There is also an argument that jobless recoveries may be a feature of recoveries going forward (hangs on productivity and technological advances). However, it is curious that jobless recovery was not a feature of any post-war recession save Bush the elder, and Bush the younger ... I guess we will see what happens with this current recession, and the recovery to follow.
 
Back
Top Bottom