Let me clarify something for you.
Making excuses 5 years in after 7 Trillion in new debt, Trillions in new printing, increased poverty and increased dependence is not the same as " thinking".
Actually its quite the opposite as youv'e ignored glaring exapmles of Obama's incompetence time and time again.
Natural disasters ? They happen in every Presidency. The Housing Collapse ? If you weren't so purposely ignorant you would know your President used to go around suing banks in Chicago for " discrimination " and was #3 on the list of Politicians that recieved the highest campaign contributions from the corrupt and Democrat run Fannie Mae.
You would know that the collapse was madated by policies pushed by Clinton and the Democrats and that Obama's actually started those policies back up through FHA.
So your'e the only one not thinking, not us.
Debt is another issue. We're talking about the economy. Jobs. These things. No president can control these. No president can create jobs without hiring and spending money. It grows the debt, but it is all a president can do.
The economy responses to a multitude of factors, few of which government has anything to do with. Instead of reading all that was linked and referred to, you limit your response to what you think will most marginalize my argument. This is a poor tactic, mostly because 1) it shows you haven't read it all and 2) doesn't dispute the the effect of other factors.
You then turn to moving the goal posts. We're not talking about the debt, which is a separate issue.
As for the collapse, you also fail to recognize other players. I could present something like this:
Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/b...iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
But I actually believe many are responsible. Not just democrats and republicans, but greedy lenders, unrealistic borrowers, and a silly belief that prices would never go down.
But here's some reading for you:
Most of the economists we spoke to agreed that the recession was caused most directly by long-term trends, especially a bust in housing prices and high energy prices, rather than by political factors.
"The Democrats can be blamed for setting the economy on a bubble-driven path in the 1990s, but the Republicans cannot escape blame for continuing this path and allowing an even larger and more dangerous bubble to develop in the first decade of the 21st century," said Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Is Rep. Foxx claiming that if we just left the Republicans in control, the housing bubble would still be growing so that we would have an even greater disaster to look forward to at the point when it finally collapsed?"
(snip)
"Anyone who tries to link the ups and downs in business to something happening in D.C. is obligated to explain what it is that happened," Reynolds said. "Otherwise, it's likely random luck. Politicians are not as important as they like to think they are."
We agree. The evidence shows that the economy did not "nose dive" for at least a year after the Democrats took control of Congress, and experts of various ideological backgrounds agree that long-term trends in the housing and energy markets played a bigger role in directly causing the recession. While what happens in Washington can certainly influence the economy, it is only one of many factors. We believe it is the height of partisan wishful thinking to imply that one party's accession to power in Congress is to blame for a major recession.
Pants on Fire!
PolitiFact | Foxx blames recession on Democratic Congressional takeover
http://www.uvu.edu/woodbury/jbi/volume8/journals/SummaryofthePrimaryCauseoftheHousingBubble.pdf
opcorn2:
