Sorry, but that's lame excuse-making. All you're doing is saying that you're willing to engage in deliberate propagandizing because other people do it also.
Nope. I'm quite able to understand a thing without accepting it as desirable. More than that I also recognize that people generally aren't interested in facts. It's all about attacking one side to defend yours.
I realize that you aren't interested in a serious discussion as you believe it's pointless, but let's go back to Bush and the economy. To do that we have to go back at least one more President, and that's to Clinton. Clinton didn't make a great economy, but he was smart enough to get the heck out of the way and let it happen. The tech bubble grew the economy with virtually no down side. Unlike housing people didn't have to assume large debt to make it happen.
Well the tech bubble eventually burst as they all do and that left Bush with an economy with no place to go. That wasn't his fault. What was is the involvement of the US in Iraq which siphoned off money from the economy. That can be laid directly at the feet of his administration, but again only one component. I don't see that being brought up in discussions do you? It's neither a condemnation or an apologist statement. It's what it was. Likewise Obama has done some positive things. GM survives and people are employed instead of collecting unemployment. What is missing is all this is that the key economic problem is that too many people do not have quality jobs, where long term employment and pay is likely. So we have a stimulus. Great. What happens when that money runs out? Another one?
Better than all that would be legislation giving a greater proportion of control to smaller shareholders of corporations instead of few controlling all, and those few in situations where they benefit of the lack of accountability in board rooms. I think Obama talked about that a little bit once. Then there's the real elephant in the room, outsourcing, which is fueled by the fact that overseas labor is cheap and so are the goods compared to American products. What changes in trade do you see either candidate seriously proposing? What legislation do you see to keep long term employment here besides a stimulus? What about targeted tax incentives for corporation who meet criteria which provide such jobs? You want a break? Hire people here.
So yeah, one could say that not screwing things up further is better than making things worse, but when that's the gold standard we're screwed anyway. Does that mean I endorse Romney/Ryan and their economic plan? No, I'd rather have a stimulus because while I haven't a problem with changing the regs to reduce taxation on business I do not want to just toss the keys to the candy store to them. The incentive there will be as always to maximize profit and make the next quarter's results look good. We are a ninety day economy. Meet the market expectations and everything else be damned. Hell of a way to run things, but there it is. Take the tax savings and use them to hire more offshore labor. No, I'll pass because that's a given disaster in the making.
So while you are unhappy with Romney/Ryan as I am I'm not so accepting of the mediocre for what must be political expediency. It's not like we have a chance at good leadership since there being only two effective choices we'll have to take what one or the other give us. I don't have to like it.
I am still finding success with bothering you both with the spelling. Especially Vito, as you keep bringing it up. It really slips under your skin and nags at you each time you see it. 
Facebook
Twitter