[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]Bush has some responsibility but let’s be truthful. He did not do this alone. [/QUOTE] How many vetoes did George Bush use during the largest growth of government, ever?
11, the least of any president since Warren Harding in 1923.
It took him 6 years to use his first veto. That’s a hell of a lot pork under the bridge. You can say George Bush never saw a spending bill he didn’t like.
GDP adjusted to inflation rate during term in office:
Roosevelt - to 1945 - 110%, 12 years
Truman - to 1953 - 85%, 8 years
Eisenhower - to 1961 - 114%, 8 years - GDP growth 38%
Kennedy/Johnson - to 1969 - 52%, 8 years - GDP growth 47.9%
Nixon/Ford - to 1977 - 4%, 8 years - GDP growth 38%
Carter - to 1981 - 0%, 4 years - GDP growth 6.2%
Reagan - to 1989 - 123%, 8 years - GDP growth 43.2%
Bush I - to 1993 - 54%, 4 years - GDP growth 7.9%
Clinton I - to 2001 - 222% - GDP growth 33.4%
Bush II - to Jan 2008 - 23%, to now -18% - GDP growth 21.8%
[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]The basic reason for this current economic mess is that politicians wanted to push home ownership onto those that had no business owning a home. I’ll let you guess who was promoting this hard. It wasn’t just Bush. It was A LOT OF DEMOCRATS TOO!!! The poster boys for this group is Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. [/QUOTE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68…
He said that Freddie/Fannie is the solution, now he is saying Freddie/Fannie is the problem…[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]IMO, too many people extrapolate their hate for Bush over his war policies to areas they should be more restrained like the economy. Bush spends no money that isn’t approved by Congress. For the past two years the Democrats have had control of Congress and NOTHING was done by them to stop this current mess. In fact, Barney Frank as late as last summer told people that Freddie and Fannie were good stock buys! The Democrats spent more time trying to hurt Bush the past two years than doing the Country’s business.[/QUOTE]Dubya is Commander In Chief in a "declared’ war…One of the basic tenets of the military is you can delegate authority but you can’t delegate responsibility…
[QUOTE=UTR;2158211]As for helping Obama, the most we can do is give him a chance and this was done on November 4th. If helping him means turning this country into more of a socialist society and raising taxes to cover the tab for it, then he will not find much help from me. He has no excuses now since Congress and the White House is Democrat controlled. In four years he won’t be able to blame Bush anymore. What ever good or bad that happens from here on lands squarely on his shoulders, which is as it should be. The one thing I am noticing is he is using a lot of Clinton era retreads and this might turn out to be a big mistake. Much of the 1990’s economic success was due to Reagan’s policies bearing fruit and the Republicans taking control of Congress in 1994. Back then the Republicans had a conservative spine and governed accordingly. Clinton’s first two years was an abysmal failure (remember Hillary’s health care fiasco?) and after 1994 he just rode on the Republican’s platform. Then the Lewinsky affair hit and he spent the rest of his second term in survival mode. Looking back, the best thing that Clinton did was to not do much at all. If Obama is going to rely on Clinton’s old cronies then he might be making a huge mistake. I also wonder if this also shows a lack of confidence on his part by not being able to recognize fresh new talent and bring them on board to provide the real change he promised. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]Ronnie Raygun also pushed the philosophy that deficits didn’t matter via Alan Greenspan…That hasn’t worked out too well has it…