Originally Posted by jimmac
Sorry but someone has to take responsibiltiy for the job of President. It might as well be the guy who was in office when the debacle happened. You liked this logic when it was Clinton.
I was referring to your statement, which was incomprehensible
Tacitly yes they have. You liked this logic when it was Bush.;
Tacitly? So "they" claimed it without claiming it? The claim itself is unsupportable, even if you could (or would) define who "they" are.
Already been over that. Sorry I don't do things twice anymore. Especially for you. And yes you used this tact when it was Clinton.
This may be news to you jimmac, but the world does not hang on your every word, as if you're some kind of all-knowing political professor. The fact that you've "been over something" just means you at some point stated your opinion, which was likely not agreed upon then--and certainly not now.Secondly, the only answer you've ever provided is "Deregulation."
. You've never explained what "deregulation" was in your opinion (I still contend you don't know). Of course, assuming you did
know (which you don't), it doesn't explain a damn thing. The "deregulation" you claim is 1. not really deregulation at all and 2. Started long before Bush. On the first point, it was specific NEW regulations on the mortgage/banking industry that helped cause the problem (forced sub-prime loans, liar's loans, low income area loans, etc). The second point is self-explanatory.
For the things he starts while he's in charge certainly he's responsible! If he does something that really
turns out to be a debacle ( not speculation from the talking heads in the GOP but something that results
in something bad certainly he can be responsible while he's in office ). Just like Bush was resposible for getting us into an unnecessary war on false pretenses.
You mean like tripling the deficit through a "stimulus" bill and a trillion dollar government takeover of healthcare? Ignoring requests for more troops in Afghanistan...those things? Oh wait..that stuff isn't his fault, because most of them started before he was in office!
He's not actually responsible for what he does in response...all his decisions are considered "good" because he didn't start it. Gotcha.
And likewise Bush was responsible for the things that happened in the 8 years he was in office. So according to your logic that you used in the early part of this decade Bush is responsible for the recession itself because it happened on his watch ( just like when you guys were calling the earlier recession " Clinton's Recession " this is now " Bush's Recession " ).
It's painful when things ( especially your own logic ) comes back to bite you in the ass isn't it?
I've never claimed Clinton did anything specific to cause the recession in 2000. However, tax rates were higher, so in my opinion we were not as well insulated against economic slowdowns. Either way, it started on his watch, just as the most recent one started on Bush's. The difference is what the next Presidents did about the recessions. In 2001 and 2003, we had large tax cuts that clearly stimulated the economy. Obama has done nothing but spend shitloads of money that we don't have. And please recall, Bush was took action in mid 2008 to stem the recession he saw coming, through tax rebates. While not the best idea, it was better than spending 787 billion on pork, then calling it "stimulus."
The bottom line is that we have to look at specific policies and whether or not they make sense. We can't just look at outcomes. No one in his right mind believes that the pork--eh..stimulus will truly work. No one believes that annual deficit spending that approaches 6% of GDP is a good thing.