What is Sarah Palin? Why She's A Neocon Co-optuer Of Course.

What policies specifically?

What policies specifically?

 

You don't really expect a coherent, truthful response, do you?

 

That's Obama for you. Create a problem, and blame Bush. A lot of us had to start our own small businesses because the large companies we worked for went overseas under Clinton. Also, when did these banking problems start, and how did then senator zero vote on them ?

That is sad. Too bad Obama & his commie co-horts are more interested in ramming a commie health care bill, and commie cap & trade thru than cutting taxes and allowing the economy to right it'self. But I'm sure you, being a "fiscal conservative" don't need to be told that, do you ?

Giving Bush a free ride ? How utterly dishonest of you. Bush was absolutely slammed when he tried to reign in F.M. & F.M., and his efforts to fix social security were beitterly fought against.

Face it. Obama is way worse than Bush, when it comes to financially devastating policies. And that is really saying something.

 

Repeat ater me and you won't have to read anything else that Crabby posts because you will have learned his main argument. "It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault. It's Bush's fault."

 

It was both his policies and his attitude.

1. Do you remember how he fired people who told him the truth; i.e. Paul O'Neill was ousted from Treasury for warning about deficits. Larry Lindsey was kicked out of the top White House economic job for predicting in 2002 that the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion.

2. Returning to deficit spending. The federal government was running a surplus when he took office.

3. Tax cuts for the rich. The time was right when Reagan did this, but times change and Bush's cuts made the coming disaster much worse. Part of the blame does have to go to Reagan, Bush and Clinton. But G. did not help mantters. The economic conditions when Bush took office were almost opposite to those when Reagan took office.

4. Lack of financial regulation. Here also Reagan, Bush and Clinton share blame.

5. Just like presidents before him he had no energy policy in attempting to lessen our dependence on foreigh oil.

6. The Iraq war that deepened our debt, especially to the Chinese.

7. Neither Bush nor Obama took the bailout far enough. Interestingly the Chinese have read our economic textbooks. When they saw the trouble the instituted a very huge bailout program and now their economy is moving upward very nicely ... for them, not for us.

Unfortuantely for Bush many of the problems that had been growing for years were not addressed by his administration and they blew up before he left office. Now, if I were really cynical, I would say he knew the problems were there and he could leave office before the train really wrecked. I do not know if this is true or not. But the bottom line is his administration did not address the problems and now we are in a mess.

 

So now it wasn't his policies - it was his attitude.

Unless you can give specific policies - that would have to be different than under the Clinton administration - then you are just blowing smoke.

You said the problems are due to "Bush's policies".

What policies?

 

As I said, it was both. Read it again. I showed attitude and policy. If you cannot see the two, then you will never understand ... or are you simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative? Policy or lack of policy comes, at least partly, from attitude.



What policies do you think were the right ones?

 

You originally said that it was Bush's policies that were responsible for the current economic situation.

Then when asked for specifics you diverted to his attitude and the continued policies of his predecessors.

You did not offer one single policy specific to Bush that is the cause of the current economic situation.

I know it and any reasonable person reading this thread knows it too.

 

Most new businesses go out of business no matter who the president because the owners go in over their heads and have no business running a business in the first place.

 

Sorry, today you get an "F" in comprehension and a "F" in economic understanding.

 

And still - no specifics.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Surely you are not that obtuse, so you must simply being argumentative. If you really are that obtuse then there is no help. If you are that obtuse you must have been a real gem in school.

 

Instead of giving a benefit of the doubt - how about giving a specific?

 

You can't blame him for not trying. In 2001, Bush proposed opening 6 million acres to drilling off the Florida coast. In 2004 he urged passage of an energy bill that would have allowed more drilling in the Gulf coast. In 2005 Bush urged Congress to send him an energy bill promoting increased nuclear energy. "It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again”. In 2008 Bush urged lifting the off-shore ban on oil exploration. He supported drilling in ANWR. In 2008 the Bush Interior Department proposed rules for oil shale development, which was fought by some states.

July of 2009 President Obama declared the stimulus bill a success. "It's done its job," he said.

And what do you think would happen to any adviser in the current administration who warned of deficits?

In 2007, with Bush’s prescription drug bill already in place, with two wars, with tax cuts, the deficit was $161 billion. Today, it’s $1.2 trillion.

 

Lots of people are trying to claim the Tea party movement as their own. Candidates around the country are billing themselves as the Tea-Party candidate. Some of them are Truther-friendly. Some are Libertarians, Independents, "Neocons" as you like to say, and others.

Don't forget that the first protesters were a bunch of Seniors who were afraid Obama was going to wreck their Medicare. Nobody else can claim to be the Authentic Tea-Partiers.

 

Poncho, are you Chuck Baldwin? I'm only asking because I'm not sure if your last post wasn't quoted because you are Chuck Baldwin, or because you simply forgot to quote it.