Is this correct?

Yurt said:
what? if the next president continues a policy of the former president, then yes, they are now in fact his policies. it is stupid and dishonest to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...


That makes sense in a dictatorship. And it makes some sense in a parliamentary government. In our system of government, it makes no sense at all.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
The deficits are largely the result of the continuation of Bush policies and the recession. Obama polices hardly rank, at least through 2010. And Obama's largest contributions arise from tax cuts, not spending.
Click to expand...

The deficits are largely the result of a continuation of President Johnsons policies.... and Clintons repeal of Glass Steagall.... Bush's hardly rank compared to those two.
 
Onceler said:
It's hilarious that you claim to thirst for "real debate." You are still dodging the issue (something you always claim). Try this simple question, again: is it your contention that the effects of Bush's policies - again, the spending, the tax cuts, the wars - ended in January of 2009?

It's not a hard question. You won't answer it, though.
Click to expand...

At what point does that excuse stop?
 
Superfreak said:
At what point does that excuse stop?
Click to expand...

Not an excuse. It's a legit question. If you go back, you'll notice that the point of contention is the mere idea that Bush's policies contributed to the current deficits, which he dismissed without a thought.

I doubt you'd have a hard time w/ that one....
 
Onceler said:
Do you have any idea how ironic this post is after what you posted above? Do you have no self-awareness?

Why not address the idea that Bush's wars & unpaid tax cuts actually might have contributed to our current situation? Goodness, what a wild idea! That one admin's fiscal irresponsibilty could actually have an effect a few years later. Crazy!
Click to expand...

Whats ironic....??? yurts posts DOES address the topic of the thread.....which deteriorated into "blaming Bush" as it always does...

Why don't YOU address the topic for a change...?
 
bravo said:
Whats ironic....??? yurts posts DOES address the topic of the thread.....which deteriorated into "blaming Bush" as it always does...

Why don't YOU address the topic for a change...?
Click to expand...

The pic of the baby crying? So, you'll defend anything from a rightie?

And really - you should lay off the caffeine...
 
Onceler said:
Not an excuse. It's a legit question. If you go back, you'll notice that the point of contention is the mere idea that Bush's policies contributed to the current deficits, which he dismissed without a thought.

I doubt you'd have a hard time w/ that one....
Click to expand...

Which again goes back to my point.... Johnson's policies also contibuted to the current deficit. As did Clintons and Carters and Reagans and Kennedy's and Nixons and Fords etc..... It is abundantly stupid to continue blaming Bush for current deficits. The Dems continue to find one excuse after another. No matter how much power they have it is always the Reps fault. It is old.... and tired.
 
Superfreak said:
Which again goes back to my point.... Johnson's policies also contibuted to the current deficit. As did Clintons and Carters and Reagans and Kennedy's and Nixons and Fords etc..... It is abundantly stupid to continue blaming Bush for current deficits. The Dems continue to find one excuse after another. No matter how much power they have it is always the Reps fault. It is old.... and tired.
Click to expand...

It's not an excuse. I didn't say that Obama's policies have no effect - they do. But the idea that his immediate predecessor, who had one of the most fiscally irresponsible admins in modern times, doesn't share a decent chunk of the blame is absurd. Even more absurd is the idea that Bush "contributed" to the current deficit one that Yurt/bravo don't even seem to think deserves discussion because it's so outrageously false.
 
Superfreak said:
Which again goes back to my point.... Johnson's policies also contibuted to the current deficit. As did Clintons and Carters and Reagans and Kennedy's and Nixons and Fords etc..... It is abundantly stupid to continue blaming Bush for current deficits. The Dems continue to find one excuse after another. No matter how much power they have it is always the Reps fault. It is old.... and tired.
Click to expand...

So all past presidents are to blame for the deficit but it's stupid to blame the immediate past president for current deficits? That makes a lot of sense, SF. Really.
 
Onceler said:
How did they? Are you serious?

8 years of fiscal irresponsibility, saying deficit spending doesn't matter, crazy spending bills, expensive wars & tax cuts...you think the effect of those issues stopped in January of 2009?

Yeah - you're really objective, Yurt. Outstanding analysis on your part.
Click to expand...

ALL spending or over spending by Bush is already accounted for in the deficits for those years of his administration.....whether it was wars, tarp, or anything else....
its already been addressed in the graph for those years...

David St. Hubbins said:
The deficits are largely the result of the continuation of Bush policies and the recession. Obama polices hardly rank, at least through 2010. And Obama's largest contributions arise from tax cuts, not spending.
Click to expand...

Bush is not responsible for any policy after he left....policy that continued unchanged or changed is something he had no control over....
Even if you want to saddle him with the wars after he left Washington, those costs are nothing compared to the overall debt piling up under Obama.......
 
David St. Hubbins said:
So all past presidents are to blame for the deficit but it's stupid to blame the immediate past president for current deficits? That makes a lot of sense, SF. Really.
Click to expand...

Before you simply say he's a moron, SF, I'd like to just state that the above is exactly what you said.

Nice going.
 
Onceler said:
It's hilarious that you claim to thirst for "real debate." You are still dodging the issue (something you always claim). Try this simple question, again: is it your contention that the effects of Bush's policies - again, the spending, the tax cuts, the wars - ended in January of 2009?

It's not a hard question. You won't answer it, though.
Click to expand...

no, that is not my contention. too bad you are wrong, yet again.
 
Onceler said:
Before you simply say he's a moron, SF, I'd like to just state that the above is exactly what you said.

Nice going.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot that I would need to spell it out for you..... to sit here and harp about the amount Bush is responsible, while the SAME point is not made about policies of Presidents prior to Bush is moronic, tired and old.

I guarantee that Johnson's policies have affected the debt of this country and its future liabilities far greater than Bush.

So to continue to say 'Bush is responsible for Obama's deficits (or a large part of them)' is tired and old as I said.

The deficit in 2008 and 2009 are understandable given the economic crisis. But at some point your messiah has to take responsibility for HIS actions, HIS policies and the policies of HIS party that have run up the deficit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top