The arguing in this thread is pathetic in many posts.
First, let's take the 'how was the economy issue'.
Let's say President 1 increased the deficit from 0 to $800 billion, $100 billion a year over 8 years; and President 2 then took it from $800 billion to 0, reducing it $100B a year.
If you asked the question, how was the average deficit under each President? The answer is, 'the same'. The question doesn't take any note of the trend.
Fact is, the first president greatly increased it, the second greatly decreased. But looking at the average is misleading on that.
So asking 'how was unemployment under Bush' - do you mean the average BEFORE the economy was crashed? Or do you mean where he took it to?
Well, let's look at the following graph, and ask about where Bush took it to - and where Obama has taken it to from where he got it in this biggest crash since the Great Depression. Now, it's not reasonable for the economy to turn around a time whoever is president; after the big crash in 1929, FDR's recovery started in 1933. But:
Now I'd say that's a much different picture of unemployment under the two presidents than asking 'how was it under the earlier part of Bush's administration?'
Short of Obama waving a magic wand and despite Republican obstructionism just getting rid of all the problems since Reagan by snapping his fingers, what do you want?
Do you simply want Republicans who will repeat the same policies as Bush? That's the alternative we see - these Republians I have NEVER seen criticize the Bush economics.
There are very rare hints about Bush being 'big government' or something from a few, but by and large they are not saying they'll do all that different than Bush.
They have the same donors, same party, same voters, same agenda. It's always just a new sales pitch for the same stuff.
All their policies are Bush on steroids, from 'flat tax of 20%' to 'flat tax of 15%' to 999.
Arguing 'people would like unemployment like it was under most of Bush' - in the economy he took from Clinton and led to a huge crash - is very misleading.
OK, for the sake of space, one more, student loans.
Now, the old system was a racket for the banks. When the government is corrupt, it LOVES to find ways to give taxpayer money to private interests under a nice cause.
Putting aside Medicare Part D as a great example of that, the student loans were GUARANTEED by the government with no risk to the banks - but the banks were paid a lot of money to process the loans and make a ton of profit on them anyway. Banks added almost no value but made a fortune. But it was all in the name of 'education' so if you criticized the corruption you could be attacked as attacking education spending.
What Obama did was the right thing for the American people - he cut out the money-draining middlemen of the banks making all the pointless money, and had the government do the loans, saving huge amounts of money - and then using that saved money to increase the amount available for loans. The ONLY people who have any basis to criticize the change are the banks who lost the corrupt tax dollars.
But there's an argument in this thread attacking the change as some harmful increase in the government's role - of course with zero to show any harm, just the rhetoric.
What a bunch of crappy arguing.
Facebook
Twitter