Obama: Uniter or Divider?

[History]

1. You want him to quit spending on Bush's War?

2. Stimulus is certainly debatable

3. There is no spending on the health care progras right now.

 

So, the only thing is the stimulus. That is it, nothing else.

How about cash for clunkers? The extension of unemployment benefits. The bailouts-which perhaps you are including in the stimulus.........

[rockmom]

How about cash for clunkers? The extension of unemployment benefits. The bailouts-which perhaps you are including in the stimulus.........

 

I'm trying to figure out exactly how the blame for the bailouts goes to Obama. Wasn't it GWB under whose watch the bailout legislation was passed.

[westsider]

How about cash for clunkers? The extension of unemployment benefits. The bailouts-which perhaps you are including in the stimulus.........

Of course, the run of bailouts started during the previous administration ...

[acemona]

How about cash for clunkers? The extension of unemployment benefits. The bailouts-which perhaps you are including in the stimulus.........

 

Check what a small percent of the deficit came from cash for clunkers, and the UE extensions are the same they have been under every president, only now have they become a political thing - bailout happened under Bush.

 

The implication is that Obama is doing something different than any president before him. The stimulus is the only thing I see that is different.

[History]

I'm trying to figure out exactly how the blame for the bailouts goes to Obama. Wasn't it GWB under whose watch the bailout legislation was passed.

 

Agreed. GWB was fearful towards the end......and weak. Cash for clunkers was an Obama plan...extending unemployment-an Obama deal...the spending must cease.

 

Step one will be the loss of the house for the democrats, then the Senate, the the white house. Then we will reverse it all again. It's like playing UNO.

[acemona]

Agreed. GWB was fearful towards the end......and weak. Cash for clunkers was an Obama plan...extending unemployment-an Obama deal...the spending must cease.

 

Step one will be the loss of the house for the democrats, then the Senate, the the white house. Then we will reverse it all again. It's like playing UNO.

 

You are just wrong on the Unemployment. It has been extended during every congress under every president for a while.

 

So what does that leave you with?

[History]

You are just wrong on the Unemployment. It has been extended during every congress under every president for a while.

 

So what does that leave you with?

 

Extended for this length of time???

 

So_ I know it worked the last time, but do you think "let's blame Bush, and women and minorities unite is going to work again?" I don't.

[acemona]

What do you mean by extended for this period of time. Yes they have been extended this long it is just that there are more people participating now.

 

I don't understand the second sentence.

[History]

What do you mean by extended for this period of time. Yes they have been extended this long it is just that there are more people participating now.

 

I don't understand the second sentence.

 

Is that going to be the way to an Obama second term-continue to blame Bush, and have a coalition of minorities and women vote for him?

[acemona]

Is that going to be the way to an Obama second term-continue to blame Bush, and have a coalition of minorities and women vote for him?

 

I didn't realize I had blamed anybody for anything. What I see are people blaming Obama for a whole lot of spending and then realizing outside of the stimulus (which was a good chunk) there are not policies that were different from any other president.

 

Here, I will blame something on Bush. When the tax cuts were enacted the plane of growth of revenue was reduced. Revenue continued to grow, but it was lower than it would have been had the cuts not been enacted. Good Keynsian economics says that the govt SHOULD HAVE A SURPLUS in good times, not give the money back. It was a bad non-keynsian move and it hurt the economy. It will take us a good long time to get out of that new slump.

[Michael Corleone]

I didn't realize I had blamed anybody for anything. What I see are people blaming Obama for a whole lot of spending and then realizing outside of the stimulus (which was a good chunk) there are not policies that were different from any other president.

 

What happened to "Change You Can Believe In"? Seems even Obama supporters are saying he is just like everyone else.

[woodsrider]

I didn't realize I had blamed anybody for anything. What I see are people blaming Obama for a whole lot of spending and then realizing outside of the stimulus (which was a good chunk) there are not policies that were different from any other president.

 

Here, I will blame something on Bush. When the tax cuts were enacted the plane of growth of revenue was reduced. Revenue continued to grow, but it was lower than it would have been had the cuts not been enacted. Good Keynsian economics says that the govt SHOULD HAVE A SURPLUS in good times, not give the money back. It was a bad non-keynsian move and it hurt the economy. It will take us a good long time to get out of that new slump.

Revenue flatten in Clinton's last year and started to decline in Bush's first 2 years. I guess it was the mess he inherited from Clinton :sssh:. When the tax cuts took effect in 2003 revenue started climbing again. The lowest revenue year under bush was 2003 @ $1.782 trillion. In Bush's best year (2007) revenue was at $2.568 trillion. So the tax cuts that you say didn't work managed to raise revenue 41% in 4 years. Even the great Clinton never achieved those types of gains.