Why is every reference to Bush "bashing Bush" when the ORIGINAL POST - the very article reference brough him up? It's sounding like "I can bash Obama by comparing apples and oranges to Bush but you can't bash Bush when trying to make the comparison more apples to apples."

Let me state this clearly. I supported and defended Bush for quite some time while he was in office. During that time he abandoned the principles of the Republican Party that I agreed with. I watched our civil rights get run over by a truck. I watched welfare get expanded with the Farm Bill and the Prescription Drug Plan - corporate welfare, but welfare nonetheless. I watched our government hire private contractors to do the work our soldiers were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay those private contractors 400% of what our soldiers get - with no liabilities and free from criminal prosecution when things went wrong.

Let me make something else clear, if Obama keeps up the unchecked accelerated spending, he'll be just as bad as Bush was.

Why so much Bush bashing - at least by your definition? Because he was the worst President since LBJ. Even *Carter* didn't wreck the economy the way Bush did - and make no mistake, Republicans were giving handouts to the banks that caused this by repealing regulations. TRILLIONS of dollars in lost assets. Retirement fund ground into dust by these criminals - and we had to pay RANSOM to bail them out! (And I used to work in that industry - let me tell you, the employees didn't see a lot of those billions)

[And the only reason I mention LBJ is because he created the "Great Society" programs that seem to have been instrumental in changing the mindset of many in this country to one of entitlement]

Even if you hated Reagan, he produced a recovery and was instrumental in the fall of the USSR. And let's not forget that the recovery didn't happen for a couple of years after - does this sound familiar - he INHERITED CARTER'S MESS.

If you hated Bush the elder, it was because he seemed out of touch - but the recession on his watch was CHILD'S PLAY compared to what we have now.

Bush the younger doesn't have any of those redeeming qualities. He started off good by going into Afghanistan and now we learn we had bin Laden IN OUR REACH and let him get away because, among other reasons, Bush diverted resources to Iraq.

Obama hasn't been in office for a year and you want to lay everything at his feet - blaming him for everything and yet giving a free pass to the batch of self-centered autocrats who MADE the mess?

Obama will at the very least be the beneficiary of the normal business cycle. How much he affects that process, for good or bad, remains to be seen. THOSE things are what Obama will be responsible for and how he's judged.

who made what mess or caused what to happen/not happen on whose watch or not.

It is simply no different than corporate America. When one takes the helm of a new position from supervisor to CEO to Chairman of the Board....they own it from day one!!!! All of it. There is no such thing as trying to sort that which the previous regime did or didn't or caused or not. It is just not done.

All of the rhetoric about what Obama (and the same for ANY predecessor...pick one) has inherited is pure unadulterated BS...dodge and weave and attempting to disclaim responsibility.

The man got elected by telling all his followers about how bad the economy was and how was the man to (dare I say it?) "change" how things got done in Washington. Different name on the door. Same-o same-o method of operating in Washington by the same old players. Spending records of all past POTUS have been broken and spending continues.

Status? The system of government is as broken as it ever was under what ever POTUS you want to pick. The tactic of spending our way out of it has been proven time and again throughout history. There is no traceable evidence that any of the spending is responsible for any improvements to date (what were they???)....no plan....no traceability....no accountability...play the blame game as long as possible.

Yes when the economy does improve, WHO EVER is in office at the time will take credit for it...it is a political joke.

btk

Originally Posted by djplong

Why is every reference to Bush "bashing Bush" when the ORIGINAL POST - the very article reference brough him up? It's sounding like "I can bash Obama by comparing apples and oranges to Bush but you can't bash Bush when trying to make the comparison more apples to apples."

Let me state this clearly. I supported and defended Bush for quite some time while he was in office. During that time he abandoned the principles of the Republican Party that I agreed with. I watched our civil rights get run over by a truck. I watched welfare get expanded with the Farm Bill and the Prescription Drug Plan - corporate welfare, but welfare nonetheless. I watched our government hire private contractors to do the work our soldiers were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay those private contractors 400% of what our soldiers get - with no liabilities and free from criminal prosecution when things went wrong.

Let me make something else clear, if Obama keeps up the unchecked accelerated spending, he'll be just as bad as Bush was.

Why so much Bush bashing - at least by your definition? Because he was the worst President since LBJ. Even *Carter* didn't wreck the economy the way Bush did - and make no mistake, Republicans were giving handouts to the banks that caused this by repealing regulations. TRILLIONS of dollars in lost assets. Retirement fund ground into dust by these criminals - and we had to pay RANSOM to bail them out! (And I used to work in that industry - let me tell you, the employees didn't see a lot of those billions)

[And the only reason I mention LBJ is because he created the "Great Society" programs that seem to have been instrumental in changing the mindset of many in this country to one of entitlement]

Even if you hated Reagan, he produced a recovery and was instrumental in the fall of the USSR. And let's not forget that the recovery didn't happen for a couple of years after - does this sound familiar - he INHERITED CARTER'S MESS.

If you hated Bush the elder, it was because he seemed out of touch - but the recession on his watch was CHILD'S PLAY compared to what we have now.

Bush the younger doesn't have any of those redeeming qualities. He started off good by going into Afghanistan and now we learn we had bin Laden IN OUR REACH and let him get away because, among other reasons, Bush diverted resources to Iraq.

Obama hasn't been in office for a year and you want to lay everything at his feet - blaming him for everything and yet giving a free pass to the batch of self-centered autocrats who MADE the mess?

Obama will at the very least be the beneficiary of the normal business cycle. How much he affects that process, for good or bad, remains to be seen. THOSE things are what Obama will be responsible for and how he's judged.

In this thread the very first mention of Bush was this ....

"Could be because the last administration never paid for anything!"

This was in response to the first post of the thread which talked about the "war tax" being discussed.

Everything then went from there to a discussion of Bush spending and NO DISCUSSION of the potential WAR TAX,, which in fact was the beginning of this thread ! My post and the others were responding to that alone !

Now, even now your post does not mention the WAR TAX !!

I plead guilty to being sidetracked when the Bush stuff started....that seems to be the response to so many discussions. I suppose he is responsible for anything and everything but only the bad stuff !

Originally Posted by djplong

Why is every reference to Bush "bashing Bush" when the ORIGINAL POST - the very article reference brough him up? It's sounding like "I can bash Obama by comparing apples and oranges to Bush but you can't bash Bush when trying to make the comparison more apples to apples."

Let me state this clearly. I supported and defended Bush for quite some time while he was in office. During that time he abandoned the principles of the Republican Party that I agreed with. I watched our civil rights get run over by a truck. I watched welfare get expanded with the Farm Bill and the Prescription Drug Plan - corporate welfare, but welfare nonetheless. I watched our government hire private contractors to do the work our soldiers were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and pay those private contractors 400% of what our soldiers get - with no liabilities and free from criminal prosecution when things went wrong.

Let me make something else clear, if Obama keeps up the unchecked accelerated spending, he'll be just as bad as Bush was.

Why so much Bush bashing - at least by your definition? Because he was the worst President since LBJ. Even *Carter* didn't wreck the economy the way Bush did - and make no mistake, Republicans were giving handouts to the banks that caused this by repealing regulations. TRILLIONS of dollars in lost assets. Retirement fund ground into dust by these criminals - and we had to pay RANSOM to bail them out! (And I used to work in that industry - let me tell you, the employees didn't see a lot of those billions)

[And the only reason I mention LBJ is because he created the "Great Society" programs that seem to have been instrumental in changing the mindset of many in this country to one of entitlement]

Even if you hated Reagan, he produced a recovery and was instrumental in the fall of the USSR. And let's not forget that the recovery didn't happen for a couple of years after - does this sound familiar - he INHERITED CARTER'S MESS.

If you hated Bush the elder, it was because he seemed out of touch - but the recession on his watch was CHILD'S PLAY compared to what we have now.

Bush the younger doesn't have any of those redeeming qualities. He started off good by going into Afghanistan and now we learn we had bin Laden IN OUR REACH and let him get away because, among other reasons, Bush diverted resources to Iraq.

Obama hasn't been in office for a year and you want to lay everything at his feet - blaming him for everything and yet giving a free pass to the batch of self-centered autocrats who MADE the mess?

Obama will at the very least be the beneficiary of the normal business cycle. How much he affects that process, for good or bad, remains to be seen. THOSE things are what Obama will be responsible for and how he's judged.

We have a tendency to look back at Clinton as economically responsible and he was to a large degree with the help of the Republican Congress who worked to cut welfare spending and killed Hillarycare. The Clinton budget surpluses were fueled by the explosion of tech stock values and the consequent increase in capital gains tax receipts.

The tech stock bubble crash started in March 2000, just three months before the end of the last fiscal year of the Clinton administration. The economy contracted and was actually in recession when Bush took office. The economy was severely damaged by the 911 attacks - we tend to forget grounding of all airlines, feverish preparations for improved security, etc.

War in Iraq and Afghanistan together with the ill advised prescription program made it worse.