No, it was radical liberals who didn't understand anything about the economy. Majority of Americans gave Bush the benefit of the doubt - and that's why his approval rating was above 50% for the first half of the year when the economy was floundering. Basically you are admitting it's the fringe elements that make up this bull about how a president in office for less than 8 months causes the economy to go sour. In this case it's even more ridiculous because people say it's not Bush but Obama and Clinton's fault - like the 8 years in between didn't matter.
Well who are we talking about here? The people slamming Obama on this BBS can't really be considered moderate can they? And (no offense) the people who were the loudest Bush haters on this BBS aren't moderate democrats either. So...
I don't know why you're quoting me with that post. I just layed out my perspective on the stimulus, which was a far cry from a defense of the current package. That said, I do think things would have been much, much worse if the Administration hadn't take the action they did..
Even considering the incredibly rare, turbulent circumstances under which Bush became President, even I don't think the whining was as strong from the left about Bush's performance (especially after 9-11) in the months following his inauguration as it has been from the right. Now, if you want to talk about election illegitimacy whining... that's a different issue.
I wasn't challenging you, just reading your post on how the stimulus wasn't the most effective one possible made me so annoyed at Biden. The stimulus was rushed through under the premise that without it all hell would break loose in the US. We were told unemployment would be above 8% without it. Unemployment is above 10% now and Biden thinks the stimulus worked better than his wildest dreams. I guess he and America were dreaming different things.
The majority of Americans - moderate republicans, independents and dems are pretty sensible. Most Dems are actually moderate. The percentage of Moderates making up the Democratic party is much much higher than the percentage of moderates making up the Republican party. That's right, the Dems are the moderate party....which is why the Dems are less likely to embrace radical policy. I'm a moderate, Refman is a moderate, so is Rocketjuduko and Invisible fan and most of the BBS. Then you have conservatives like yourself, and liberals. Then you have radical conservatives and radical liberals. And these are the people who I consider wacko's and the folks that blame Obama for this economy and Bush for the economy back in 2001.
Maybe Obama has been too busy filling government post jobs with his fundraisers. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-28-bundlers_N.htm
I'm not disagreeing with you here. My point was more to say "duh." The people you are talking about are often intelligent but care more about party politics than anything else. And I thought we were talking about the BBS squad, not America's middle ground. Obviously America's middle ground doesn't think Obama caused this crap since he's still popular.
This definitely deserves its own thread. What a liar Obama has been shown to be. During the campaign trail, he pledged that lobbyists would not hold sway in his administration. HE LIED
Who gives a crap whose fault it is? Who gives a crap if what we've tried did or didn't work? What's done is done. How about we ask how to fix it now, instead of pointing fingers? I suppose that's too much to ask of politicians.
Please back this up with anything of substance. I saw Krugman talking about doing things that would have averted the housing crisis, but that just came from reading his articles.
"well..ummm...you really can't give him any credit for that. i mean, it's just ordinary economic cycles. in fact, that happened in spite of him. but the unemployment thing is all his." (not meant to be implied as justtxyank's response)
Please find where I made any comment on whether the economy is either good or bad right now. I was referring directly to the unemployment rate which is now at 10%. My comments have nothing to do with whether or not this is Obama's fault, Bush's fault, Satan's fault, etc., but rather it is my commentary on the annoying vice president who had the political idiocy to come out and say the stimulus has worked beyond his wildest dreams despite unemployment rising ABOVE the number they said it would keep it below.
very misleading number based on one-time stimuli such as the cash for clunkers. You can go dance in the streets celebrating the GDP number while the masses suffer without jobs.
I agree...Biden should just keep his mouth shut. It seems like you have to be really careful about what you say in this forum these days...people are ready to jump all over you the minute you criticize any of this admin's policies. Not sure if it was the same during the W debacle...didn't ever come in here. I have no problem with people supporting the president and his initiatives, and while I don't necessarily agree with all of them, people really seem to jump to conclusions and get uber defensive when it occurs (IE when I have made a point in the past, all of a sudden someone rushes in and starts ripping the republican party...and I am not a republican) And to Sam, re: stimulus numbers...I didn't think about it that way...that was a good point. However, as far as the current unemployment percentages and the goal of the stimulus, it seems, in my mind, to not be worth the cost so far. I understand the economy is not really related to the president (good or bad), but I don't feel like they have the right to say "it's working the way we intended it to work"
I know what your comment is referring to, and I'm saying given GDP growth of 3.5%, does he have a right to say it worked. I understand that they were talking about stopping job losses at the time, hindsight it was stupid to say that, but that doesn't mean that the 3.5% number was something to be excited about
