Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 11

Originally Posted by trumptman

It's not going over anyone's head. Rate of job loss is related to the unemployment rate. The slowing of job loss is why the unemployment rate has stalled out at or around 10%. The point was, and remains that with the Obama stimulus, it was supposed to slow and stall out at around 8%. The point was and also remains that without the stimulus it was supposed to slow and stall out at around 9% and the level at amount of time that the job market was supposed to take to recover was supposed to be longer.

There is no scenario where job losses remained large and never ending. You are giving Obama credit for a scenario that never did exist and never would exist.


What the graph shows is classic for a recession. The graphs shows imbalances being corrected within the economy. Those imbalances would have corrected and people would eventually go back to work REGARDLESS of what Obama or Bush did. They don't go back to work in their old jobs because those are related to the imbalance but new areas of need are generated and they go to work there. Again this is true FOR EVERY RECESSION. The graph shows nothing more than that. There is no graph where everyone lays it down, never works again, and just dies.



Wrong. Obama could have brought the bipartisanship he promised. In this particular matter, while I still would have disagreed with it, he could have put together a true stimulus plan to help displaced workers. Most of the workers were in the construction field. He could have put together plenty of shovel ready work and it would have passed easily. Republicans made dozens of attempts to separate the shovel ready work (about 15% of the entire stimulus last I recall) from the "pay off the Democratic constituencies and grow dependency" portions of the stimulus (about 85%.)

Obama chose his path. It was expensive, ineffective and partisan and he should be judged by the very results he promised.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Yes, yes we know Bush is not responsible for anything that happened while he was in office. He was just taking up space.

PPD

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Heh. It's working for Obama, so why not.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Do you mean the president that's been in office 1/8th the time Bush was?

If you want to fairly compare the two instead of making childish quips talk about it when Obama's finished his 2 terms in office.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I merely commented on your implication that Bush should be held responsible for everything that occurred during the entire time he was in office. If we are to apply this standard equally the amount of time the current president has been in office is irrelevant. He's responsible for all of the things that happen while he's in office. But from what I can tell he seems reluctant (what with his cat-like reflexes in dodging blame) to accept responsibility for anything negative while fully accepting praise for anything positive (however minimal).

I merely commented on your implication that Bush should be held responsible for everything that occurred during the entire time he was in office.

If we are to apply this standard equally the amount of time the current president has been in office is irrelevant

Originally Posted by jimmac

Apparently you didn't read what I said very closely. I said " anything " not " Everything ".

Originally Posted by jimmac

As I added to my post recently ( so I'll cut you some slack ) Bush is in summary mode now. You can look at his entire time in office. There won't be any further changes to the record ( bad as it might be ). Obama isn't even close to that yet. That's the difference.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Fair enough. So, by your estimation, there are some things that happened during his time in office that Bush need not be held responsible for. Now it's just a matter of sorting out which things those are.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Of course. However some are obvious.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

What are the obvious ones?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Look I'm going to go make dinner but I'll leave you with one " Iraq ".

Originally Posted by jimmac

It was supposed to be a quick surgical in and out and what do you know? We're still there ( not much longer though thank god ).

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I agree that Iraq was a mistake. Sadly it isn't being fixed yet.

With due agreement of the mistake that Iraq was and is, I don't recall claims at that time that it would be "a quick surgical in and out." If you have a link to back that up I'd be interested.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You keep repeating this defense and hoping it will stick. No one is claiming we can evaluate the outcomes that haven't happened yet. No one is claiming that we can judge Obama's entire first term before it's happened.

Instead, what I and others are doing is looking at Obama's actions thus far. It's frankly not even what the outcomes are at this point. No reasonable person expects everything to be roses a year into his term. However, we can look at his actions and ask if they make any sense whatsoever. We can look at promises that were made and broken (or kept).

The problem with Obama supporters is that deep down, they know that what Obama is doing is not good for the country--and won't work. They just can't admit it to themselves or to others. So then it becomes a waiting game. "Give him some time...he can't undo all the damage Bush caused in only one year." The issue there is that they are fooling themselves. Even IF Bush was responsible for the "damage," anyone with eyes and ears can see that Obama is doing far more damage.

We always seem to get into this point, jimmac. You refuse to see what Obama is doing RIGHT NOW. Instead, you keep hoping that somehow things will magically get better with the economy. Even if that happens (in spite of Obama's actions), we'll be left with a mountain of debt and no real way of paying it off.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unconstitutional, immoral, and are extremely costly both monetarily and in terms of human lives.

And they could not continue without the support and consent of BOTH MAJOR PARTIES. Actions speak louder than words, and congressman from both parties continue to vote to fund the wars...with money we don't have.

And you know what? I don't really feel much safer...do you?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

"It's only been a year."

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Do you need to go back on ignore? Clearly you're not reading. Your post does not address what Obama is doing in response. You see, even if one concedes that Bush was COMPLETELY responsible for any economic problems we've experienced, it doesn't change what Obama's actions have been in combatting the crisis.

That's the point on which you have steadfastly refused to engage. Someone criticizes an Obama action/policy, and the answer immediately is "But Bush..." or "It's only been a year." We can talk about what Bush did all day. None of it matters, because we need to discuss what Obama is doing NOW.

Do you need to go back on ignore?

You see, even if one concedes that Bush was COMPLETELY responsible for any economic problems we've experienced, it doesn't change what Obama's actions have been in combatting the crisis.