Which coattails would that be? The greatest recession (that started in December, 2007) since the Great Depression? Job losses that had reached 750,000/month before he took office? Two unnecessary, and UNPAID FOR wars? A $750 Billion UNPAID FOR drug benefit? A $700 Billion TARP bailout to cover the "too big to fail" buddies? Eight years of UNPAID FOR tax-cuts that were supposed to "create jobs"? (but only created 3 million after 8 years?)
You mean THOSE "coattails"? Yes, I can certainly see where the previous administration had such a great grasp of economics....
LadyJazzer wrote: Which coattails would that be? The greatest recession (that started in December, 2007) since the Great Depression? Job losses that had reached 750,000/month before he took office? Two unnecessary, and UNPAID FOR wars? A $750 Billion UNPAID FOR drug benefit? A $700 Billion TARP bailout to cover the "too big to fail" buddies? Eight years of UNPAID FOR tax-cuts that were supposed to "create jobs"? (but only created 3 million after 8 years?)
You mean THOSE "coattails"? Yes, I can certainly see where the previous administration had such a great grasp of economics....
Reagan was able to turn around the economy after the stagflation of Carter, but Obama is helpless to Bush? Or, is Obama just continuing the foreign and domestic policies of Bush?
Would people have voted for Barack if they would have known, it will just be more of the same. Gitmo? Still open. Patriot Act? Still there. Continued tax breaks for the rich, check!
Continued bailouts & corporate cronyism like Solyandra. Sure keep on defending the man and blame it all on Bush, but it looks to me like Obama talks a good game about defending the middle class, but wealth continues to decline for everybody but the rich, and jobs are only coming back to the Right to Work states like Texas and North Dakota.
Barack may have run extolling green energy, but the want ads I am hearing on the radio are for Halliburton oil field workers.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
LadyJazzer wrote: Which coattails would that be? The greatest recession (that started in December, 2007) since the Great Depression? Job losses that had reached 750,000/month before he took office? Two unnecessary, and UNPAID FOR wars? A $750 Billion UNPAID FOR drug benefit? A $700 Billion TARP bailout to cover the "too big to fail" buddies? Eight years of UNPAID FOR tax-cuts that were supposed to "create jobs"? (but only created 3 million after 8 years?)
You mean THOSE "coattails"? Yes, I can certainly see where the previous administration had such a great grasp of economics....
Wait a minute here, I could have sworn, in fact I will, that Obama himself called the war in Afghanistan a war of necessity. I would also have sworn, in fact I will, that the recession started after the Democrats gained control of Congress - you know, the federal branch of government that actually appropriates the money - and trebled the annual federal deficit. The $700 Billion Toxic Asset Relief Program? Why, it was the federally created (under majority control of the general government by Democrats) and then privately chartered (again by a general government populated by Democrats) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose sole purpose was to be the major purchaser of mortgages in the secondary mortgage market and to have 55% of the mortgages they purchased be to lower income brackets (didn't Barney Frank head that committee at the time?), that sold those toxic mortgage backed security assets in the first place, right? It was also appropriated by a Congress in which both houses had a majority of Democrats, right?
The across the board tax rate cuts in 2003? They helped federal tax receipts rise 2% of the union's GDP in 3 years after 2 straight years of decline following the attacks in 2001. The only way that an argument can be made that those tax rate cuts cost the federal government money would be an attempt to pretend that the economy would have been the same with or without those tax rate cuts - an argument impossible to sustain as it is based upon pure speculation as to what might have occurred under a different set of circumstances than the ones in place at the time. Such an argument if fundamentally flawed at its outset, and any conclusions derived from that flawed argument are themselves equally fundamentally flawed, though it is no wonder that you continue to rely on such a fundamentally flawed argument and continue to repeat the lie in the hopes that it will somehow be transformed into truth.
Reagan was able to turn around the economy after the stagflation of Carter, but Obama is helpless to Bush? Or, is Obama just continuing the foreign and domestic policies of Bush?
Sure keep on defending the man and blame it all on Bush, but it looks to me like Obama talks a good game about defending the middle class, but wealth continues to decline for everybody but the rich, and jobs are only coming back to the Right to Work states like Texas and North Dakota.
