• 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%

  • Forever.

    Votes: 23 71.9%

  • I'm done blaming Bush.

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
PzKfW IVe said:
:roll:

It is clear that, regardless of the truth, you're only interested in
1: Blaming the GOP
2: Absolving the Dems
3: Protecting The Obama.

I have no time for partisan bigots; as such, I thank you for making it clear I need not conaider anything else you might post.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know how you live with yourself?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Again, source your numbers. I always like a good laugh.

I'd really like to see the source you are using which informed you that the debt was 9 trillion when Bush left office. I'd like to see the source you rely on which informed you the debt increased 6.5 trillion in just 2½ years.
Click to expand...
USDebt.jpg

But then when you factor in the GDP...and the number of papers sold by the NYT divided by the number of letters in Bush's name and the overall growth of hedge funds and stocks owned by Warren Buffets secretary...you can see it is still all Bush's fault...
 
PzKfW IVe said:
:roll:

It is clear that, regardless of the truth, you're only interested in
1: Blaming the GOP
2: Absolving the Dems
3: Protecting The Obama.

I have no time for partisan bigots; as such, I thank you for making it clear I need not conaider anything else you might post.
Click to expand...

Obama was forced to extend the Bush-era tax-cuts, in order to prevent a government shutdown. Do you really think its honest to now consider these tax-cuts to be "Obama's tax-cuts"?

Obama did not remove tax-loopholes, because the GOP backed him into a corner and made him choose between standing up for his principles and allowing the country to default on its debt. He chose to defend the economic stability & faith/credit of the United States. Do you think its honest to now consider Obama to be in support of tax-loopholes used by the wealthy and hedge-fund managers?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Do you even understand how the graphically demonstrates what I just posted?

It doesn't rebuke what I said -- it confirms it.


Then you would be talking about the U6 unemployment rate which is currently at 16.2%.

Under Bush, it went from 7.3% to 14% -- a 6.7 point increase, or a 92% increase

Under Obama, it went from 14% to 16.2% -- a 2.2 point increase, or a 16% increase

So how on Earth does that make Obama worse than Bush?

That's like having a pitcher give up 10 runs and then complain his backup is worse because the backup gave up two runs and now they're losing by 12-0 when it was only 10-0 before the reliever came in.​
Click to expand...
You claim better or worse. Only an ideologue would look at ANY of those statistics and claim pride in his retard king. No wonder they have little concern about the upcoming reelection. The president isnt elected so they can take a bad situation and make it worse or maintain it. You crow with pride that your selected retard King has managed to maintain throughout the course of his presidency an unemployment rate ranging from 16 to 18 percent. Good lord, Pete...seriously. It's time to lay off the kool aid.
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
I have no time for partisan bigots; as such, I thank you for making it clear I need not conaider anything else you might post.
Click to expand...
Please put me on ignore. I'm putting you there for exactly what you say - blaming the Dems, absolving the GOP of any wrongdoing and blaming everything on Obama.
 
Last edited:
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Please put me on ignore. I've already put you there for exactly what you say - blaming the Dems, absolving the GOP of any wrongdoing and blaming everything on Obama.
Click to expand...

really? then how did you see his post? :lamo :lamo
 
Thunder said:
Obama was forced to extend the Bush-era tax-cuts, in order to prevent a government shutdown. Do you really think its honest to now consider these tax-cuts to be "Obama's tax-cuts"?

Obama did not remove tax-loopholes, because the GOP backed him into a corner and made him choose between standing up for his principles and allowing the country to default on its debt. He chose to defend the economic stability & faith/credit of the United States. Do you think its honest to now consider Obama to be in support of tax-loopholes used by the wealthy and hedge-fund managers?
Click to expand...
Right...because no WAY could a congress, controlled by the democrats since January 2007, and a president under democrat control since January 2009, be expected to so much as pass an OPERATING budget, let alone actually act on budgeting constraints prior to those tax cuts expiring. Its all Bushs fault.
 
VanceMack said:
Right...because no WAY could a congress, controlled by the democrats since January 2007, and a president under democrat control since January 2009, be expected to so much as pass an OPERATING budget, let alone actually act on budgeting constraints prior to those tax cuts expiring. Its all Bushs fault.
Click to expand...

let us know when you find evidence of a Democrat blaming Bush for this.
 
VanceMack said:
View attachment 67115919

But then when you factor in the GDP...and the number of papers sold by the NYT divided by the number of letters in Bush's name and the overall growth of hedge funds and stocks owned by Warren Buffets secretary...you can see it is still all Bush's fault...
Click to expand...
Still no link, huh? Whatever .... here are the actual numbers ...

1/20/2009: 10,626,877,048,913
9/19/2011: 14,729,488,947,752
Increase: 4,102,611,898,839

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

You said: "9 trillion when Bush got out of office, Pete"

Actual number was 10.6 trillion

You said: "Its not like he ran up 7 trillion in debt in 8 years...just 6.5 trillion in 2.5 years. Sheesh. Get a little perspective willya?"

Actual number is 4.1 trillion

And even that's if you start counting from 1/20/2009, which would be unreasonable since we were still operating under Bush's budget.
 
VanceMack said:
You claim better or worse. Only an ideologue would look at ANY of those statistics and claim pride in his retard king. No wonder they have little concern about the upcoming reelection. The president isnt elected so they can take a bad situation and make it worse or maintain it. You crow with pride that your selected retard King has managed to maintain throughout the course of his presidency an unemployment rate ranging from 16 to 18 percent. Good lord, Pete...seriously. It's time to lay off the kool aid.
Click to expand...
I claim which of the two contributed more to the mess; was clearly Bush.

The U6 unemployment rate increased 6.7 points (92%) under Bush; it increased 2.2 points (16%) under Obama. Just because it's higher now than it was when Obama took over doesn't make Obama worse than Bush.

Bush was worse.

So what else ya got?
 
Thunder said:
let us know when you find evidence of a Democrat blaming Bush for this.
Click to expand...
You DIDNT actually read your own post stating they were 'forced' to extend the Bush tax cuts? Better check with the mods...I think someone is posting retarded **** using your login trying to make you look bad! :shock:
 
VanceMack said:
Right...because no WAY could a congress, controlled by the democrats since January 2007, and a president under democrat control since January 2009, be expected to so much as pass an OPERATING budget, let alone actually act on budgeting constraints prior to those tax cuts expiring. Its all Bushs fault.
Click to expand...
Yes - Bush MADE the dems and The Obama extend and expand his policies.
:roll:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I claim which of the two contributed more to the mess; was clearly Bush.

The U6 unemployment rate increased 6.7 points (92%) under Bush; it increased 2.2 points (16%) under Obama. Just because it's higher now than it was when Obama took over doesn't make Obama worse than Bush.

Bush was worse.

So what else ya got?
Click to expand...
You keep posting all I need. Nothing I say could make you look more foolish. You embrace Obamas 2.5-3 years as 'superior'. Pete...ya done said it all.
 
Thunder said:
people can see the posts of members they have on ignore, if the post is quoted by someone else.
Click to expand...

this wasn't the case in this instance. he was responding directly to a post from a guy he allegedly had on ignore. :failpail:
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes - Bush MADE the dems and The Obama extend and expand his policies.
:roll:
Click to expand...
Well...you know...if you dont pass an annual operating budget, and dont do anything about spending cuts, and just in general ignore EVERYTHING til it becomes a crisis, then I suppose you can justify to your muppets why it is the other guys fault. Hell...this is nothing. There are still people that blame the worlds problems on a president elected in 1980.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Well...you know...if you dont pass an annual operating budget, and dont do anything about spending cuts, and just in general ignore EVERYTHING til it becomes a crisis, then I suppose you can justify to your muppets why it is the other guys fault. Hell...this is nothing. There are still people that blame the worlds promblems on a president elected in 1980.
Click to expand...
Each of these policies had to be willfully expanded by a positive act of leguslature -- that is, they would have expired had The Obama and the Dems not taken the steps necessary for their continuance.
To this, and most other things, the partisan bigot can only respond "No! Bush! -His- fault!"
 
VanceMack said:
You keep posting all I need. Nothing I say could make you look more foolish. You embrace Obamas 2.5-3 years as 'superior'. Pete...ya done said it all.
Click to expand...
Cries the poster who's claiming a 6.7 point increase in unemployment (92% increase) is better than a 2.2 point increase in unemployment (16% increase) :roll:

Which of of the two increased unemployment more, Bush or Obama?

Keep these numbers in mind...

Using the U6 rate, in Jan/2001, there were about 10.5 million underemployed.
in Aug/2003, there were about 14.8 million underemployed, an increase of about 4.3 million.
in Jan/2009, there were about 21.6 million underemployed, an increase of about 11.1 million.
today, there are about 24.9 million underemployed, an increase of about 3.3 million

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

More people lost their jobs under Bush, whether just looking at his first 31 months in office, vis-a-vis Obama, or looking at his entire term.

Please explain how Bush did a better job than Obama by losing more jobs than Obama has lost? I'd really like to hear how your mind resolves that conundrum.
 
I will forgive Bush when the last soldier leaves Iraq. Bush lied us into this war and it will take me many years to forgive him for his corruption.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes - Bush MADE the dems and The Obama extend and expand his policies.
:roll:
Click to expand...

no, but the GOP made Obama choose between extending some of Bush's tax policies and allowing the government to shut down and allowing the govt. to default on its debt.
 
I'm sure that supporters of Hoover and Nixon hoped that time would cause people to forget about them, the same way the Bush Apologists hope that people will forget about the GWB blunders.
 
Sandy Price said:
I will forgive Bush when the last soldier leaves Iraq. Bush lied us into this war and it will take me many years to forgive him for his corruption.
Click to expand...

Under the Obama administration, we have continued to with these wars, and have even increased our involvement.

If these wars are really so bad an idea, then why hasn't Obama pulled us out of them, like he said he would do when he was campaigning? At what point will you put some of the blame on Obama for continuing to keep us involved in these wars?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Cries the poster who's claiming a 6.7 point increase in unemployment (92% increase) is better than a 2.2 point increase in unemployment (16% increase) :roll:

Which of of the two increased unemployment more, Bush or Obama?

Keep these numbers in mind...

Using the U6 rate, in Jan/2001, there were about 10.5 million underemployed.
in Aug/2003, there were about 14.8 million underemployed, an increase of about 4.3 million.
in Jan/2009, there were about 21.6 million underemployed, an increase of about 11.1 million.
today, there are about 24.9 million underemployed, an increase of about 3.3 million

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
Portal Seven | U6 Unemployment Rate

More people lost their jobs under Bush, whether just looking at his first 31 months in office, vis-a-vis Obama, or looking at his entire term.

Please explain how Bush did a better job than Obama by losing more jobs than Obama has lost? I'd really like to hear how your mind resolves that conundrum.
Click to expand...
Identify the ideologue who is defending the fact that his retard King has managed to maintain unemployment rates since he was president...and that managed to accrue debt at a far faster rate than 'the other guy'. One of us left a party because of the other guy. You defend yours. Thats comical. no...wait...its pathetic.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If these wars are really so bad an idea, then why hasn't Obama pulled us out of them, like he said he would do when he was campaigning?
Click to expand...
I don't suppose you would mind quoting what Obama actually said about it when he was campaigning? You know, just so we can compare what he actually said with what he actually did. I'd hat to rely on your recollection when the facts are out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom