On the flip side, other people seem to be to quick to blame Bush for everything.
I am just curious when the responsibility for shit not going well will actually rest on Obama's shoulders. On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > That sounds like a good plan to me Judah! People seem to be too quick to > scream "don't blame Bush" on a lot of issues that stem directly from actions > his administration took, yet were quick to take credit for things that had > nothing to do with what he did while he was in office. > > Eric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 12:04 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Ummm, about that budget . . . > > > Are you talking about the stimulus plan? It was watered down, > significantly, in Congressional negotiations and then still didn't > attract many votes from people who forced concessions. It did pretty > much what Krugman (and others) argued it would, it stopped the free > fall but wasn't big enough to substantially move things in a new > direction. I give them credit for arresting the bleeding and moving > things in the right direction but the lack of political will to take > the steps necessary to actually push things forward and bring down the > unemployment rate is pretty pathetic. > > As for the debt argument, it is bogus. The largest contributions to > the debt, going forward, are war expenditures, decreased tax > collections due to economic downturn and the tax cuts put in place > during the Bush administration. If you'd like to see a graph: > http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 > > Maybe we can find a middle ground on tax issues. Let's reset tax rates > to what they were in, say, 1982 after Reagan put the first major tax > overhaul in place. Then let's get rid of one war and follow the DoD's > recommendations for cutting weapons systems and closing bases. I > suspect that if you do those two things, most of the deficit concern > will be gone. There is still economic growth to be considered and > lowering the unemployment rate though. And, as any economist will tell > you, the primary motivator that is consumer demand. > > Judah > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The President's plan has failed to bring down unemployment and restart >> economic growth, and it has added an obscene amount of money to our >> debt. Republicans see that failure as a demonstration of the >> President's lack of competence in economic matters and his general >> hostility to private enterprise. >> >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Sisk, Kris <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> That to me indicates that BOTH parties need to be demonized. >>> >>> Basically what you're saying is that because the Republicans won't let >>> the Dems do what they want they're justified in passing a VERY wrong >>> piece of legislation. What I see is two parties that are so caught up in >>> pushing their own agendas and fighting with each other that they've >>> forgotten to do their job. And no, saying they can spend money without a >>> budget does not qualify as doing their job. It qualifies as massively >>> irresponsible no matter what the motivation behind it. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322585 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
