The idea or the contention by the Democrats that Bush or his policies was at least partially responsible for the near economic collapse and severe recession to follow is their saving grace....their substantive argument for the finish to this year's campaign because what they will intend to show down the stretch is exactly what they ( the Dems and Obama ) have had to deal with.....that mess left by Bush. http://prospect.org/article/bush-blame-economy "At the most basic level, contrary to the myth, growth has actually been very weak under President Bush. Here is the ranking of growth by presidential administrations since 1960: Kennedy-Johnson: 5.2% Clinton: 3.6% Reagan: 3.4% Carter: 3.4% Nixon-Ford: 2.7% Bush II: 2.6% Bush I: 1.9%" Now....if Paul Ryan wants to stand up there last night....and Mitt Romney wants to stand up there tonight and just villify Obama....with no scant reference at all to what mess Obama stepped in to it's just downright frustrating to any of us looking for some honesty......for some viable alternatives. They will be skewered for that stance in any debates and the election race will be over. p.s. if you wonder where Obama fit's in: http://news.yahoo.com/economic-recovery-weakest-since-world-war-ii-152031546--finance.htmlif "America's gross domestic product — the broadest measure of economic output — grew 6.8 percent from the April-June quarter of 2009 through the same quarter this year, the slowest in the first three years of a postwar recovery" So better than Bush....but bad for a recovery that hasn't really taken wing. So.....the point is how and why would any reasonable thinking educated undecided voter want to place his voting trust in the hands of people who just shrug their shoulders with regard to the past and who do not offer up the realities of where we are today economically and who are also unable to acknowledge ALL of the factors and forces that have brought us to this point. This whiny...immature rhetoric of "hey...look at me.....I'm soooooo much better than the incumbent" yada yada yada without any real alternative to what hasn't worked in the past is just comical and sad.
Dave, let me ask you this...if you took over office in such an economic crisis what would your first priority be? What would you use all of your political capital on? Coming up with a completely new (expensive) overhaul of health care? We can debate all day long what the appropriate steps would be to turn things around but it should be clear what the top priority of the administration should have been...and was not. He has done many things to stifle economic recovery...all to placate his ultra liberal supporters. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48840584
The exorbitant costs of healthcare is one of the biggest culprits by far with regard to holding down our economic recovery. Guys like Romney whose mammoth income makes unaffordable family healthcare costs seem like a mite on an elephant don't get it and politicians who have no worries about their own healthcare costs ....they don't get it. But the middle class painfully gets it and the percentage ratio of cost vs. income for family healthcare expense today is a major factor keeping the middle class from having an active role in our economic recovery. So...along with underemployment the cost of healthcare for the average American weighs very heavily on our economic recovery. The old system has malfunctioned and reform is needed drastically.
Sure...and I have said that all along...do you really think this marvelous program is going to do anything to cut health care costs? You must. I don't.
You know Dave I read your article that mentions how Bush benefitted from the housing bubble but completely overlooked the tech-dot.com bubble that occurred under Clinton. Many folks suffered staggering losses when tech stocks ( especially those artificially inflated by the Y2K fear) crashed. That "wealth" was just as artificial as that of the housing bubble. As we discussed Bush had both 9/11 and Katrina that greatly impacted the economy. Nevertheless unemployment was never as high under Bush as it has been under Obama. We're sick and the doctor we've been going to for 3 1/2 years hasn't made us any better. We KKOW he can't do it.
Problem is Gipper we need to switch hospitals but half of the patient's brain is hellbent on seeing the original doctor who misdiagnosed and fouled everything up to begin with.
That is not so. Bush's problem was that he was a huge spender. Then 9/11 and the war doubled down on that. You'd like to think that all we have to do is increase taxes on all these wealthy bastards, but there isn't enough money in their coffers to make a dent in our future debt even if we took half of it. Increasing tax rates looks good on paper...until you see what it does to the economy...production....jobs....income....and, ultimately taxes. We have to decrease spending...and not by just knocking out a couple of earmarks or subsidies or something. Look at this chart...somebody tell me how we are going to balance the budget or lower the deficit without cutting some combination of untouchables...defense, education, health care, pensions, and welfare. Those include 73% of our spending budget. And interest is another 5% and that can't be cut. AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE SOCIAL SECURITY WHICH IS ANOTHER TOPIC ON ITS OWN! I think Romney is one of the ones who understands this...certainly Ryan is. Kemp was. Kasich is. Bush and his advisors were not. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart
Right about Bush's spending ( from the article link above which was written in late December 2008 ) "But growth is only a small part of the story. As has been widely publicized, the Bush-era deficits reversed the effects of the deficit reduction from the Clinton years. We will almost certainly end the Bush years with a higher debt-to-gross domestic product ratio than we had at the start of the Clinton presidency. That is not a disaster, but the next administration will not have the luxury of allowing the debt to increase in the same way. Perhaps more important, the ratio of foreign debt to GDP has soared in the Bush years. By the end of the Bush presidency, we will likely have added more than $1.5 trillion (more than 10 percent of GDP) to our foreign indebtedness. This is the result of the massive trade deficits of the Bush years. " '
Plain and simple Bush was not a true Conservative. He claimed to be a "compassionate one" but was a compromised one. No true Conservative would have spent like he did.
Look I am a conservative who has been rooted deeply in christian beliefs, some may not agree and others may relate but I vote with my faith based on the "word". Not based on a 30 second ad or a 3 day convention. Quite honestly I have zero faith in anything man has to say or promise, just look at the trek record in that pursuit. But anyway you look at it the wars, and war machine of $400 billion dollars per year along with the 256 bases we currently occupy have not been beneficial to the United States. GWB in my opinion was surrounded by those who had much to gain if the "war" machine was once again activated. Does this make it right or the correct approach for the United States I would have to vote no. Would I with patriotism galore have given my "only" son and child the blessing of a parent the go ahead to go fight in a Iraq or Afghanistan as Dick Cheney gave us updated notes of more terrorist activity. No I would not. Are the children (yes, children who died in either war going to be remembered as we do those who died in WWII, no they are not) going to be embraced as hero's as we do those who died in previous wars? Do I blame Bush for putting whatever president who followed him in a bad position yes I do and I voted for him twice....But Obama has had four fricken years to prove himself. He seemed to try briefly to see if he could work out the discourse with congress and use his gift at conversation to bring both parties together. This did not work for all kinds of reasons mentioned in previous written post. So he adopted the methodology of let's blame Bush for everything and keep ourselves in the position of president. Our country is only a "symbol" of what it used to be, our debt is honestly unapproachable in the wish to balance it. We have new bureaucratic entities such as Homeland Security that command civilians with impunity. We have for the first time more citizens receiving federal aid such as food stamps than those who are working to pay for such luxury's. Starting from the White House we are now punishing the American dream of success with animosity toward those who have been successful and a move toward class warfare. To rob a quote from the last election we need change. What is currently in place is not working or the answer to fix the problems left over from the previous tenant. We can bicker back and forth in childlike manner of who said what but meanwhile the problems are not being answered or addressed. I promised myself I would not vote for the lesser of both evils again in any election but I feel we are at the crossroad to destruction or the chance of hope in the upcoming ballot and it will not be marked with a vote for Obama....
Anarchy seems closer to me. Former Republican Governor of Florida Charlie Christ just recently announced his support for Obama saying that the GOP has just moved way too far to the right to effectively govern the majority of the people and I couldn't agree more. I used to be able to seriously consider and yes vote for GOP candidates but the far right.....including 80% of you on this board just will not have anything to do with moderate thinking or compromise. I firmly believe it is a combination that dates back to the Nixon resignation combined with a growth in numbers of far left extremism born out of the Rush radio media hatred of anything liberal and the Clinton witch hunt that followed. Both far left and right sides hate the other and are not willing to compromise. I think what Christ is saying is that are more moderates willing to do just that left of center so that's where he thinks the answer lies in ending this stalemate.
I'm not counting on your vote either Dave. I gotta tell ya though, I have never claimed to know **** about politics or economics, which is why I RARELY chime in on these backroom posts on those subjects. In the last few years I have taken a bigger interest in researching topics that are discussed, due to getting older and wanting to understand the process better so I can form my own opinion and beliefs, should I decide to enter into the gauntlet of conversation that exists here. One thing I believe is that there are some REALLY, REALLY smart cookies here on this board, that I/we have been communicating with for about 20 years now, and I put you in that category also Dave. We have a very unique BB here. Our membership has residence(s) that are spread throughout the country, and consists of a mix of successful business people, professionals, military, and the blue collar backbone. I have had the pleasure of having company with quite a few of the folks here, and I'll tell you again, they're pretty intelligent and impressive people. With that said, I don't trust the talking heads anymore. I think that the networks are held at gunpoint to deliver the message of one body of thinking. What I do trust is the voice of WE THE PEOPLE, and that's exactly what we have here in the backroom. Due to the fantastic posts that I read here for FREE, I have become educated and more aware of the issues and woes that exist in our country. What I also get is the PEOPLES version, and for me that's drinking straight from the still. So with that in mind... Could you define moderate thinking for me? I understand compromise, but you only compromise when the other side has the ability to destroy, and the other side can't stop that from happening.
So, who on the left is this middle of the road guy you speak of? Sounds like socialisim is what you crave Dave. I hear that Canada is accepting citizenship.
I consider myself to be fairly moderate. As most of us do. To my view the democrats consider compromise to be giving then everything they want. I realize that both sides have that same problem but they are the ones always whining about compromise. When was the last bone they threw us? If Christ (who you forgot to mention left the party) is so moderate he is backing the wrong guy. You have a few disillusioned who have left your party as well. I have always liked Joe Lieberman.