Riding high? The tech bubble bursted, he inherited a recession, and 9/11 happened. How is that riding high?
Call me crazy but I recall things being ALOT BETTER in 1999~2000 [No major wars, No Ridiculous Debt, No billions of month exiting the country because of said War, No incredibly high gas prices. . .in fact I think Gas was Sub 2$ then] 9/11 - well that happened ON HIS WATCH! Rocket River
Things were better then but by no means was he riding High! Get over yourself with 9/11. Happening on someone's watch doesn't mean it was his fault. I lost 3 friends at WTC. I don't blame Bush, Clinton, GHB, or Reagan. 9/11 happened because of cowardly radical terrorists. So you want to bring up a timeline of it happening during GWB term fine. To blame him for that is like blaming him for the Rockets not making it to the Finals. At the end of the day, 3000 people died under the WORLD'S WATCH! Not just one man, one president, one leader. That was an attack on the world society, not just America. But then again, that's how you LIBS see the world. Put the blame all on ONE MAN!
you didnt know that GW caused the WTC attack?! what are you going to say next, you didnt know GW also causes hurricanes, heart disease and halitosis. Everything is GWs fault...everything. I can't wait for him to be out of office just because people will think things will get better and the stupid look on their faces will be priceless once they realize that maybe all the problems really werent because of him.
I don't think Liberals are trying to place the exclusive blame on Bush. What I find absolutely appalling is the exploitation of that tragedy for political purposes coupled with the fact that the administration does deserve some blame (which they will not admit) and this country deserves a full accounting (which we will not get).
as I recall . . . you brought up 9/11 I did not It seemed to be an excuse for the failing economy If it so sensative to you . . why did you bring it up You say I am Blaming Bush However you brought it up to DEFEND Bush why is one ok . .and the other not? Rocket River
How am I defending Bush? I'm rebutting your comment about him riding HIGH! I'm rebutting that things weren't so Peachy as you saw them. You need to get off your HIGH HORSE! Saying he wasn't riding high = defending Bush. Gotcha! Good grief. Are you that self-centered with your hate with Bush that when someone points things out all of a sudden, I'm defending him? The world was in a recession in 1999-2000. I have family and friends around the world that wasn't doing well. How did that affect my family and I? Well we had to support them and send them money. I had friends that lost their jobs when the tech bubble burst. All you can talk about is how gas was under $2 and no visible wars. Dude...the world is full of wars. Yet you don't think globally, you only think about what is happening in your backyard. How conveniently selfish.
9/11 hurt the ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY and changed EVERYONES lives since then GLOBALLY! But you are too worried about your $2 gas and billions of dollars leaving this country taking away from your Liberal socialist programs that you may or may not support!
You mean like you Hatred of Obama? no my friend. . my horse is not as high as your own. and alas. . . people vote and care about their Backyards I'm not about to get into a pissing contest with you I am done with it. you have you opinion and I have mind Compared to today . .yes. . .BUSH CAME IN RIDING HIGH! Rocket River
Well it is debatable whether McCain will be an improvement over Bush. From a needless war point of view, perhaps worse. No reason to think better. We do know that Democrats have had higher growth rates and also at the same time increased economic equality. So most of the country including the members of this bbs, do better financially, usually if the Democrats win. ************* The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. ... But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. .... The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin.
