View Poll Results: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Very Convincing

    1 5.26%
  • Somewhat Convincing

    1 5.26%
  • Neither

    2 10.53%
  • Somewhat Unconvincing

    1 5.26%
  • Very Unconvincing

    14 73.68%
Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 161

Thread: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    There absolutely is when some of them, and I'm not saying you, are the same types of people who 4 years ago were going "The Deficit! The Deficit! Bush is stealing from our kids!"
    I think there are a lot of moderates and independents, not to mention conservative democrats, who have been saying this for 20+ years about EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT. The only one I remember being at all fiscally prudent was Clinton, and he was blessed with a booming economy that largely had nothing to do with him.

    I didn't like overspending when Reagan did it, Bush did it, and I particularly don't like corporate welfare handouts targeted to specific companies which, IMO, is anti-free market.

  2. #122
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    But you're proving my point Redress, you're making excuses. The same can be done for Bush. While not immedietely facing one, he faced a recession himself during his 2nd/3rd year. He then again faced a recession in his 7th and 8th year. In between he faced two seperate wars that typically cause deficit issues. Its not hard to excuse why there's deficits, but you gotta keep it consistant. People on one side can't make it out as if its the greatest sin in the world and then turn around and go "no no no, its perfectly okay".

    Now, before someone foolishly points me to the Cheney or Rummy quote (can't remember who said it), you can ask people around the forum rather I'm a giant Bush lover or if I was fond of Bush's spending.



    There absolutely is when some of them, and I'm not saying you, are the same types of people who 4 years ago were going "The Deficit! The Deficit! Bush is stealing from our kids!"
    Zyph, at least 4 of the 8 years under Bush where with a booming economy. The wars don't account for nearly all the deficits run up. Under Obama, there has bee no time of even a decent economy, and things are worse during his entire term in office so far than it was under Bush. And yet the right wing talking point is the Obama deficits.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #123
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Zyph, at least 4 of the 8 years under Bush where with a booming economy. The wars don't account for nearly all the deficits run up. Under Obama, there has bee no time of even a decent economy, and things are worse during his entire term in office so far than it was under Bush. And yet the right wing talking point is the Obama deficits.
    "Booming" is rather arguable there. I remember numerous democrats and stories coming out in 2005 and 2006 telling us how horrible the economy was and downplaying the stock numbers because "Just becaus walstreet is healthy doesn't mean main street is".

    And Obama's current recession is arguably no wores than the last 2 years of Bush's, or at least the last year, yet is raising the deficit far more than Bush did during that time with little better effect.

    Sorry, not buying it Redress. You can't bitch about the deficit being important and then say how its absolutely positively not important and SPEND SPEND SPEND. Your defense of "why its okay for MY guy to do it" is no better than that which is given for Bush. Obama has had a bad economy for his year and a half, and has almost ran up more of a deficit than Bush did in all 8 years of his Presidency...that includes 4 years of recessions and 7 years of Wars.

    Either gigantic deficits are bad, or gigantic deficits are acceptable. IF "Giant Deficits are bad, except when I think they're good" is your answer...fine, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously when your reasonings for why its okay for one and bad for another are not nearly different enough to account for the difference in deficits and difference in reaction.

    Me personally, I think in general deficits are bad. Yes, they have a purpose at times and I would actually suggest there were legitimate reasosn for both Obama and Bush to run some deficits. I believe neither of them have reason enough to run the extremely large deficits they did or currently are running though. I don't think two recessions and a war justified Bush's historic running up of the deficit, and I definitely don't think one recession warrants Obama's complete and utter 2 year trumping of Bush's 8 year debacle.

  4. #124
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Did you notice the world changed the last 60 years....
    Yes, Democrats send troops to war and then abandon them in their hour of need. Vietnam and Gulf War 2 come quickly to mind.

    There used to be a time Democrats had tough wartime leadership and showed support when our troops were in harms way. Now they openly seek their defeat, and even declare it!

    .
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  5. #125
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Its indisputable that Obama inherited a load of messes.

    However, this is the case in some way shape or form for most Presidents. Is it perhaps worse for Obama than many? Absolutely, I'd put it around on par with Reagan. The issue however is that is part of the job. No one said the Presidency was supposed to be easy, and ultimately by taking the position it becomes your responsability.

    Say you apply for a job at a company with the knowledge before hand that you're going to be heading up a project that has had a load of issues and problems. They're bringing you in to hopefully fix it, and while they're going to give you some lattitude and be understanding that you didn't create these issues, its still now going to be YOURS. So if you get in there and the actions you're taking to fix it aren't really working, or that fix isn't coming as quickly or efficiently as your employers like, or you're "fixing" it in a similar way that it got broke in the first place you're employer is not going to go "Well, its okay, you didn't cause this."

    No, you took the job knowing there were issues and you took the job with the promise and the notion that it was going to be on you to fix it. You have claimed responsability for the issue.

    This is what Obama, and all Presidents, face.

    We must keep it in proper context. Obama did inherent this. There are issues with this that are the fault of the Bush Administration and the congresses (both the Republican ones from 2000-2006 and the Democrat one from 2006-2008) that were presiding over it. That should definitely temper things, especially very early on and it should keep anyone from stating that Obama caused these or invented these issues.

    However, while it WAS Bush's War...they are not Obama's wars. Why? Because he's President, he took up the mantle, he said he had a plan, he has the job, and its now his responsability. Was this Bush's recession? Yes. Now it's Obama's, because he took up that responsability. If he didn't want the repsonsability he shouldn't have ran. If you don't want him to have the responsability, you shouldn't have voted for him.

    And while Bush may've helped to cause these things, one can not simply keep pointing to him as the cure for all ills that go wrong...especially now a year and a half out. If someone says "Obama's [x] isn't helping/is hurting the economy" an answer of "Well he didn't ask for it!" or "Its bad because of Bush!" is not legitimate. He DID ask for it, by choosing to run for the Presidency knowing these issues and telling us he'd fix it. It doesn't matter if its bad because of Bush, he's the President now and he's elected to try and fix it and if he's unable to HE gets the blame.

    There is not a job in this country where if you are unable to do what you're hired to do, or if you do the opposite of it, that you're free from criticism or reprimand because "Well the guy that had this job a year and a half ago had it in a crappy position".

    Republicans need to stop acting like all these problems materialized under Obama. However Democrats need to stop acting like pointing back to Bush somehow excuses Obama for any of the continued problems a year and a half into his Presidency.

    These are his now, as much as they are Bush, because he's the President and he ran knowing full well these issues were here and with the statement to the American people that he was the man to fix them.
    Everything you say here is fair.

    However, when people look back upon Reagan's time, they forget that at this EXACT point in his first term, unemployment had gone UP to 9.7% and things were actually worse off than when he first got there. It wasn't really until into his second term that the ship was truly righting its self.

    Again, disagree with what Obama is doing, but what he's facing is kinda disturbingly familiar to this time in 1983. Immigration, high unemployment, etc. Technically, if you compare GDP growth in this recovery, Obama's recovery has started about six months earlier than the recovery began under Reagan.

    BUT - I need to thank you. It's pleasing to actually have a fair discussion instead of all the hyperbole that seems to drag most threads down.

  6. #126
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    It happens in every government in the world people always blame the last guy.People even do it at work.However it depends on the situation or subject.
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  7. #127
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    "Booming" is rather arguable there. I remember numerous democrats and stories coming out in 2005 and 2006 telling us how horrible the economy was and downplaying the stock numbers because "Just becaus walstreet is healthy doesn't mean main street is".

    And Obama's current recession is arguably no wores than the last 2 years of Bush's, or at least the last year, yet is raising the deficit far more than Bush did during that time with little better effect.

    Sorry, not buying it Redress. You can't bitch about the deficit being important and then say how its absolutely positively not important and SPEND SPEND SPEND. Your defense of "why its okay for MY guy to do it" is no better than that which is given for Bush. Obama has had a bad economy for his year and a half, and has almost ran up more of a deficit than Bush did in all 8 years of his Presidency...that includes 4 years of recessions and 7 years of Wars.

    Either gigantic deficits are bad, or gigantic deficits are acceptable. IF "Giant Deficits are bad, except when I think they're good" is your answer...fine, but don't expect anyone to take it seriously when your reasonings for why its okay for one and bad for another are not nearly different enough to account for the difference in deficits and difference in reaction.

    Me personally, I think in general deficits are bad. Yes, they have a purpose at times and I would actually suggest there were legitimate reasosn for both Obama and Bush to run some deficits. I believe neither of them have reason enough to run the extremely large deficits they did or currently are running though. I don't think two recessions and a war justified Bush's historic running up of the deficit, and I definitely don't think one recession warrants Obama's complete and utter 2 year trumping of Bush's 8 year debacle.
    And you are missing what I am saying. If you have fiscal responsibility when times are relatively good, then spending heavily when times are bad to try and help boost the economy is not a big thing. Bush spent heavily, always. He did not show any fiscal responsibility. Obama has not yet had the good times to compare with. If he continues to spend like he is, then it's a problem. If he does do things to try and reign in spending(as it looks like he wants to do), then the couple years of spending are not a big deal. Bush's running up the debt was understandable and acceptable during the bad times, but the fault is when he did nothing to curb the deficit when times where relatively good.

    It's not a Bush vs Obama thing. It's an every president during my lifetime(except possibly Clinton, and he lucked into alot of it). Mind the deficit in good times, spend when times are bad, and you can maintain a certain level of debt without harm basically forever. Growth reduces the problem. I am not saying Obama is doing it right, I am saying it is too early to judge, since we have yet to have a period of good economy.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    I've always ignored Bush.

    Now that he's out of office, it's even easier.

    Needless to say, it's not hard to ignore Progressives. They're never right, ya just have to wait for them to shut up and move on.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    you see, that's the problem right there.

    Bush wasn't the cause of the problem.

    If you want to address the causes of today's problems, you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt, Woody Wilson, the other "Progressives" and "Liberals", you have to see the nonsense of Marx and the other socialists for what it really is, and then, if you want to fix things, you have to start reversing the damage all those people have done, and begin to restore the Constitution to it's rightful place as the law of the land.

    The Messiah is a bad president not because he inherited a mess from the previous president. Reagan had that hand dealt to him, too.

    Anyone here expect the Messiah to create 22,000,000 jobs in the next six years?

    Seriously?

    Then the issue isn't the circumstance of the presidency, but the ability of the executive to control the circumstance and make it swing his way.

    As far as I can tell from watching the Messiah, he is controlling the circumstance of his presidency and making it do exactly what he wants it to do.

    A room full of monkeys throwing darts will get half the answers right on a test. The only way the Messiah can be so persistently wrong about everything is to be deliberately wrong.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: How convincing is the ignore Bush strategy?

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i think most people on the left acknowledge obama mistakes. i also think reasonable people know 18 months is not nearly enought time to judge a presidency.
    No.

    They do not.

    Mistake #1: Refusal to cut taxes across the board.

    Mistake #2: Eagerness to raise taxes.

    Mistake #3: Quadrupling the Deficit in one year.

    Mistake #4: Suing Arizona for attempting to enforce federal laws he's Constitutionally obligated to enforce but refuses to.

    Mistake #5: Defining "openness" in politics as "plywood over windows".

    Mistake #6: Focusing exclusively on ramming a health care plan not wanted by the majority with national official unemployment rates increase by 50% to nearly 10% overall. Ten-friggin'-percent.

    Mistake #7: Accepting blatant racism in his Justice Deparment. Not wise at all for a president pretending to be "post-racial".

    Mistake #8: Refusing to waive the laws forbidding non-US ships to operate in the Gulf of Mexico to clean up the spill, and related errors.

    Mistake #9: His persistence in bowing and kowtowing to foreign leaders. He's yet to visit the city of Al Kuds. One of his staff referred to Jerusalem by it's muslim name, for some strange reason. In other words, he's demonstrated the most incompetent foreign policy in my lifetime.

    Mistake #10: US dependency on foreign oil has not declined, US reliance on domestic fossil reserves has not expanded.

    The question that will and should be asked is:

    Is the nation better off than it was when he mispoke the Oath of Office that sad January day, 2009?

    The truthful answer is "hell no".

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •