Bush: did he leave America better off than it was?

[Damocles]

If I accept your premise, then it is possible that exculpatory circumstances would explain why Obama's economic measures also haven't performed as expected?

Not really, his measures have largely been to give money to states to maintain government jobs (necessary, but doesn't create any jobs), and then to promote a "green economy" that is functionally economically unsound. As company after company that have received his nod of approval (standing and making speeches about how great they are) fails it becomes apparent his plan is failing. There was no interim measure for technologies that actually exist as functional and economical fact, short-sighted insistence of an ideologue is not an economic plan that has in any measure a way to work.

Had Obama actually set Americans a plan to build the interim infrastructure to get off foreign energy dependence and promoted the research to build the next technology it like would have worked, but he insisted that the interim step be skipped.

Imagine a "to the moon" style drive to build the infrastructure and convert the vehicles to LNG or Propane with gasoline only as a backup. Since nuclear seems right out to this Administration we'd need to use coal or oil for energy in the interim, coal would be better we have it here and there are ways to return the carbon emissions to the ground rather than to the air that would make it a reasonable interim measure until we can create a viable self-sustaining solution.... Nuclear wouldn't be a bad interim, except we'd need to build the reactors and then take them down again. Coal would be better. On and on...

All of this would definitely create jobs, and be useful for national security, for American businesses, on and on...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Not really, his measures have largely been to give money to states to maintain government jobs (necessary, but doesn't create any jobs), and then to promote a "green economy" that is functionally economically unsound. As company after company that have received his nod of approval (standing and making speeches about how great they are) fails it becomes apparent his plan is failing. There was no interim measure for technologies that actually exist as functional and economical fact, short-sighted insistence of an ideologue is not an economic plan that has any measure a way to work. Had Obama actually set Americans a plan to build the interim infrastructure to get off foreign energy dependence and promoted the research to build the next technology it like would have worked, but he insisted that the interim step be skipped.

Imagine a "to the moon" style drive to build the infrastructure and convert the vehicles to LNG or Propane with gasoline only as a backup. Since nuclear seems right out to this Administration we'd need to use coal or oil for energy in the interim, coal would be better we have it here and there are ways to return the carbon emissions to the ground rather than to the air that would make it a reasonable interim measure until we can create a viable self-sustaining solution.... Nuclear wouldn't be a bad interim, except we'd need to build the reactors and then take them down again. Coal would be better. On and on...All of this would definitely create jobs, and be useful for national security, for American businesses, on and on...

So you are willing to excuse the failure of the Bush tax cuts owing to circumstances?

 

[Damocles]

So you are willing to excuse the failure of the Bush tax cuts owing to circumstances?

First, my post had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, it answered your question about Obama's economic plan. As I said previously, I find it unlikely that they failed, I explained why I think we'd be worse off had they not been in existence.

Although I think Bush was a fool not to implement the same things in my post about Obama. Bush's economic "plan" was to tell people to "buy stuff", and I explained how that failed as well. Your focus seems to be on tax cuts, that they somehow "didn't work", etc. What didn't work was continuing the reliance on foreign energy. Neither President has produced anything that could be considered a way out of that, it seems the oil lobby is too powerful regardless of who is in office.

We need off the foreign energy teat, and we need it far faster than promoting non-existent technology will get us there, and it will actually create the jobs you seek.

Both Presidents failed in economic policy. Both of them did the same thing for different reasons.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

First, my post had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts, it answered your question about Obama's economic plan. As I said previously, I find it unlikely that they failed, I explained why I think we'd be worse off had they not been in existence. Although I think Bush was a fool not to implement the same things in my post about Obama. Bush's economic "plan" was to tell people to "buy stuff", and I explained how that failed as well. Your focus seems to be on tax cuts, that they somehow "didn't work", etc. What didn't work was continuing the reliance on foreign energy. Neither President has produced anything that could be considered a way out of that, it seems the oil lobby is too powerful regardless of who is in office. We need off the foreign energy teat, and we need it far faster than promoting non-existent technology will get us there, and it will actually create the jobs you seek. Both Presidents failed in economic policy. Both of them did the same thing for different reasons.

Do you, therefore, subscribe to the dictum that tax cuts will create jobs?

 

[Damocles]

Do you, therefore, subscribe to the dictum that tax cuts will create jobs?

I have already explained that in this thread. Why do you repeat the question? Read, my friend, and you will be enlightened but repetitive explanations are not my cup of tea.

 

[Minister of Truth]

He can't read, as demonstrated earlier.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I have already explained that in this thread. Why do you repeat the question? Read, my friend, and you will be enlightened but repetitive explanations are not my cup of tea.

I was hoping you'd be more succinct, as in 'yes', or "no'?

 

[signalmankenneth]

The Decline of America under George W. Bush
by James P. Huchthausen
$16.95
Discount code for 20% off: WZLH6SD

https://www.createspace.com/3615232

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You expect 'baggers to read a book instead of cut n' pasting from the Blaze or Fox?

You have to make your points short and avoid big words.

Here's a factoid for the spending cut/debt-crisis crowd:


The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP), due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration