• 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!

How long will you "blame Bush"?

How long will you blame Bush

  • Less than one more year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Until this term is over

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
We're never going to stop blaming Bush for the things that are his fault. Even when the recession is over, it'll still be his fault that it happened.

I never said that the recession was his fault. Did he let it happen? Well that may be another story.
 
GWB was certainly responsible for several items that are going to continue to be problems for years to come - invading Iraq, Gitmo, cutting taxes and relying on borrowing money to spend heavily, driving a lot of medical research out of the US. However, a lot of the blame goes to Congressmen on both sides of the aisle. Lately, the GOP has stopped Obama from changing the disastrous course GWB put us on and I hold them squarely responsible for the deepening recession and the lack deficit reduction.
 
I never said that the recession was his fault. Did he let it happen? Well that may be another story.

Well, that's what I'm saying. You can't assign the entirety of the blame for something like that to any one person, but I'd say he's the majority shareholder.
 
blaming Bush for what he did or didn't do doesn't bug me at all... deflecting Obama's responsibility to Bush does.

for the first year Bush was in office, everything was Clinton fault....that is to be expected.

what shouldn't be expected, and yet happens today, is having a President 3/4th through his first term not be held responsible for much of anything.
one full term is going to based on nothing more than victimhood.


sorry Obama, you wanted the job, you took it... now you own it.
it doesn't matter if you were left a crap economy.... own it or gtfo.
 
Well, that's what I'm saying. You can't assign the entirety of the blame for something like that to any one person, but I'd say he's the majority shareholder.

you would be wrong... deregulation that took place that allowed the Quants to game the system didn't happen under Bush.

that's the problem with the blame game... too few are interested in truth, too many are interested in partisan politics.
 
Well, that's what I'm saying. You can't assign the entirety of the blame for something like that to any one person, but I'd say he's the majority shareholder.

Isn't Bush the one who placed industry cronies in charge of the banking regulatory agencies that were not inclined to pursue infractions for misdeeds?
 
blaming Bush for what he did or didn't do doesn't bug me at all... deflecting Obama's responsibility to Bush does.

for the first year Bush was in office, everything was Clinton fault....that is to be expected.

what shouldn't be expected, and yet happens today, is having a President 3/4th through his first term not be held responsible for much of anything.
one full term is going to based on nothing more than victimhood.


sorry Obama, you wanted the job, you took it... now you own it.
it doesn't matter if you were left a crap economy.... own it or gtfo.

So it is your opinion that the worst recession since WWII should have been "fixed" sooner??? How would you have accomplished that feat?

And what has the GOP offered in the last 2-1/2 years to "fix" the recession quicker?
 
Last edited:
Pretty simple - for people who just like to say "I blame Bush" over and over, how much longer do we have to hear it?

As long as he deserves it.
 
Pretty simple - for people who just like to say "I blame Bush" over and over, how much longer do we have to hear it?

As long as he is responsible for the consequences of his actions, which is, indefinitely.

If you mean how long it will maintain valid political currency: as long as the consequences of his actions are still exerting influence in socio-economic events.
 
Last edited:
you would be wrong... deregulation that took place that allowed the Quants to game the system didn't happen under Bush.

that's the problem with the blame game... too few are interested in truth, too many are interested in partisan politics.

Even if it started under Clinton, that doesn't mean that you let it keep going on if you know it's not the right thing to do. Also we should have kept a closer eye on Wall Street and the loans that they were giving out to people that wanted mortgages.
 
I have never seen such venomous political opposition outside of the walls of the Sejm. The GOP is more than willing to let the economy falter in the hope that such a scenario will score major political points for the next election.

Possibly, but the Democrats didn't think that was enough. They had to push it over the ****ing cliff.

Whatever you can claim that Bush did wrong, and whatever adverse effect you can claim it had on the economy, is nothing compare to what The Democrats have done to it since Obama took office.

If Bush was negligent or careless, then Obama and his cronies were maliciously, willfully destructive.
 
Obama has proposed a debt-reduction plan today. How will that increase the debt?

If you believe that anything that Obama has proposed will actually reduce the debt, or for that matter, have any effect other than to drive the economy further into the crapper, well… that only goes to show that there's a Thunder born every minute.
 
Possibly, but the Democrats didn't think that was enough. They had to push it over the ****ing cliff.

Whatever you can claim that Bush did wrong, and whatever adverse effect you can claim it had on the economy, is nothing compare to what The Democrats have done to it since Obama took office.

If Bush was negligent or careless, then Obama and his cronies were maliciously, willfully destructive.

A completely made up belief. There's no action of Obama's that can't be measured to be economically beneficial. Although, none of them have been beneficial enough to satisfy the American people.

You clearly misapprehend the scope of the tax cuts, increased military spending, and domestic negligence and how it has trapped successive political leaders in economic and political conundrums that have no viable solutions.
 
Last edited:
If you believe that anything that Obama has proposed will actually reduce the debt, or for that matter, have any effect other than to drive the economy further into the crapper, well… that only goes to show that there's a Thunder born every minute.

I don't think Obama is driving our economy further down the crapper I think we are falling down the crapper and Obama is trying to keep our head above water. Is he solving the problem? No, he's simply attempting to try to make sure that things don't get worse.
 
what are you suggesting? The President of the United States can't propose a debt-reduction plan if he has passed legislation that increased the debt?

If you trust someone once, and he rips you off, do you trust him again?

If Bernie Madoff offered you a great investment opportunity, would you take him up on it?

Obama told us before, that he was going to fix our weak economy, and reduce the deficit. Too many Americans were stupid enough to trust him once, and with that trust, he trashed the economy, and drive the deficit up to previously unprecedented levels.

Amazingly, even after that, there are still plenty of Americans who are still stupid enough to trust him.

How many times can one con-artist rip you off before you wise up and stop trusting him enough to let him continue doing so?
 
I don't trust Obama. Anyone who's smoked pot and won't legalize it is a snake in my book. :peace
 
Look at it this way, when I'm 70 I'll still blame everything on the shrubbery.
 
If you trust someone once, and he rips you off, do you trust him again?

If Bernie Madoff offered you a great investment opportunity, would you take him up on it?

Obama told us before, that he was going to fix our weak economy, and reduce the deficit. Too many Americans were stupid enough to trust him once, and with that trust, he trashed the economy, and drive the deficit up to previously unprecedented levels.

Amazingly, even after that, there are still plenty of Americans who are still stupid enough to trust him.

How many times can one con-artist rip you off before you wise up and stop trusting him enough to let him continue doing so?

When are Republicans going to wise up and vote for people who don't increase the size of government and cater to the short term interests of upper-incomes over long term solutions to the national debt and rising economic inequity?

Partisanship of any kind inexorably has bad results because any form of belief or devotion to a platform or political cause merely becomes a tool for someone skillful at manipulating political symbolism to obtain and maintain power. No one has to take decisive action on issues like immigration or government spending because no one is held to task for their failure to obtain results so long as the rival point-of-view is kept from political power. That is the nature of partisanship and the only kind of polity it can produce.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but there's no doubt that someone has been filling Obama's pockets to avoid the issue. He even said himself that he endorsed medical cannabis. Is it legal yet? Of course not. There is also no doubt of the positive effect that legalizing cannabis would have on our economy. It's the next gold rush, but it's the green rush.
 
Okay, tell me what EXACTLY was the reason to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq?

This might have something to do with it…

348px-September_11_Photo_Montage.jpg
689px-UA_Flight_175_hits_WTC_south_tower_9-11_edit.jpeg


 
Possibly, but the Democrats didn't think that was enough. They had to push it over the ****ing cliff.

Whatever you can claim that Bush did wrong, and whatever adverse effect you can claim it had on the economy, is nothing compare to what The Democrats have done to it since Obama took office.

If Bush was negligent or careless, then Obama and his cronies were maliciously, willfully destructive.

chart-job-growth-bush-obama.jpg


Get over yourself.
 
This might have something to do with it…

Right. Because going to war with an entire country is totally the most efficient way to capture a single guy who happens to be in that country at the time. And how about Iraq?
 
If you trust someone once, and he rips you off, do you trust him again?

If Bernie Madoff offered you a great investment opportunity, would you take him up on it?

Obama told us before, that he was going to fix our weak economy, and reduce the deficit. Too many Americans were stupid enough to trust him once, and with that trust, he trashed the economy, and drive the deficit up to previously unprecedented levels.

Amazingly, even after that, there are still plenty of Americans who are still stupid enough to trust him.

How many times can one con-artist rip you off before you wise up and stop trusting him enough to let him continue doing so?

Yeah, you're right! So lets elect the Republicans next time around!

Oh, wait...
 
I don't think Obama is driving our economy further down the crapper I think we are falling down the crapper and Obama is trying to keep our head above water. Is he solving the problem? No, he's simply attempting to try to make sure that things don't get worse.

Except that he has caused it to get worse. At a time when the nation could ill afford it, he has squandered unprecedented amount of this nation's wealth on wasteful, fraudulent, destructive scams that have left this nation and its people much poorer than before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom