Sadly, I agree. This has gone past serious.
Posted on 07/26/2010 7:06:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sadly, I agree. This has gone past serious.
There was no Bush era fiscal discipline. And the fact that Obama is worse doesn’t change that.
I still do. That doesn't mean the Obammunist isn't light years worse, but let's not look fondly back at the cyanide we took yesterday, just because a gun's pointed at our heads today.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The Democrats said that in 2004 about Bush. Then they went and nominated John Kerry. The GOP's chances in 2012 will also depend on who they nominate.
In other words you want your BDS
The 2002 through 2009 budgets were passed on Bush's watch. If that's your idea of fiscal discipline then you have no concept of the term.
I MISS CHENEY
I MISS AMERICA
We're not doing ourselves any favors by pretending Bush was a conservative. He wasn't. By and large, he was a disaster as a president, and he set disastrous precedents.
Just because Bush was a little better than what we have now doesn't mean we shouldn't set our sights higher, and demand more from our would-be leaders. I won't settle for another Bush, whether his name is Bush, McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Gingrich, or whatever. While we'll never have another Ronald Reagan, I will demand whoever I support tries his or her damnedest to live up to his legacy.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Jan 5 ,09 ...Today, President-elect Obama is moving forward with what he has billed as his top priority: an economic stimulus package called the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.”
So when CAN we say “its no longer Bush’s fault?”
I agree, of course, that the degree to which we will beat Obama will depend on the GOP nominee. But I really see Obama's chances as very weak, largely because his base has crumbled and I don't see how he gets enough strength back there to be a strong contender. I'm more worried about Hillary at this point.
I think Bush can share the blame for this. The whole TARP bailout bill was signed by him. Obama piled the spending on, there isn't any argument about that. But Bush started the ball rolling, and that was just a continuation of the out-of-control spending that went on through his entire administration. By any stretch of the imaginiation, "George W. Bush" and "fiscal responsibility" are a contradiction in terms.
So now I’m not even allowed my own thoughts?
Great!
There are a lot of people , me included that do not lump Tarp in with the rest of the stuff...Tarp WAS needed to prevent more of a meltdown
If we are right about that then you should thank God everyday that Bush was our President and stop cursing him
There are a lot of people , me included that do not lump Tarp in with the rest of the stuff...Tarp WAS needed to prevent more of a meltdown
If we are right about that then you should thank God everyday that Bush was our President and stop cursing him
And no doubt a lot of Obama supporters will swear up and down that all the stimulus spending was absolutely vital to head off a major depression. But at the end of the day it's both supporting government spending money is doesn't have.
Besides, add in the wars, No Child Left Behind spending, Prescription Drug plans, and God knows what else and you still have a president who hadn't any interest in fiscal responsibility.
TARP was not part of a Keynesian mentality; it supported the supply-side, not the demand side.
Some think we would have been better off had more huge banks failed, spurring smaller ones to fail, generating bank runs and small business lines of credit to collapse throughout the country. Don't think so.
Then the socialists won’t have any excuses.
On May24, 2001, Traitor Jim Jeffords defected to the Democrats and President Bush dealt with a majority Dem Senate throughout his presidency. The Dems control was even absolute when you consider the spinelessness of the GOP members of Congress.
One of the problems we have as a country is that anyone can justify any level of government spending on the grounds that it was ‘necessary’. That doesn’t make it prudent or responsible. And as I said, TARP was just the tail end of Bush’s term in office, which was marked with increased spending and growth in government from the first day to the last.
And the president can veto it.
How on Earth did you infer that? I was agreeing with 2/3 of what you said.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.