This puzzles me because we had a good economy under Bush and even with his expansion of the government he still managed to keep our economy at a growing rate and yes, even through war time. I'll say it again, he fucked up the last three or so months of his presidency. Those three months were not even close enough to blame for the six years of disaster almost the day Obama was "elected".
You're joking, right? First of all, please can the "wartime" bullshit. Dealing with Afghanistan was arguably justified (albeit, horribly handled) but the Iraq war was not only unnecessary but meaningless. The fact is that the Bush administration duped the country into supporting a war on, let's be generous and say trumped up evidence.
Now, with that out of the way, the economy was
shit under Bush. You can argue that part of that was caused by the dotcom bubble going "*PLOP*" but it wasn't
just that. The economy was shit, and the policies advocated by the Bush Administration just piled more shit on top, wasting money left and right while talking about "tax cuts" that were, by and large, just for show since despite lower marginal tax rates were in effect, the AMT rates were not adjusted and would kick in eliminating potential tax savings.
It's true that towards the end, they did go completely overboard, no argument there, but let's not pretend that things were otherwise rosy during the Bush Administration.
So yeah, Obama inherited a huge mess. And, unfortunately, he then made an even bigger mess of it. I almost feel sorry for whoever ends up being President in 2016 and hope that (s)he will invest in a great pair of knee-high galoshes prior to inauguration.
If it profits Carter it doesn't matter. He still has a socialist/marxist mentality and that's what he fed the American people
Come on... I mean we all know you aren't objective and see everything in terms of (R) and (D), but this just silly even by your standards. You say you want a businessman for President, but you dismissively wave away Carter, who was a successful businessman, because you disagree with his positions.
And before you go on telling us how horrible Carter was - and he was pretty bad as a President - please remember that this is about his business acumen; that's the only thing that's at issue. So, let's look at the facts together, shall we? By all accounts, Carter was successful as a business man: he managed to turn around the business he inherited and significantly expanded it. Prior to his foray into politics, he had managed to become not only considerably wealthy but was viewed as very successful on his
own right .
I'm not going to bother asking you to be objective - we both know you can't be. But at least, don't try to hide behind your finger and don't be ashamed to admit that you don't give a shit about whether the next President is a businessman or a career politician. We all know that your
one and only criterion is whether your political views perfectly align.
Clinton benefited from the dot com era, this isn't anything new. Towards the end of HIS presidency the economy was starting to decline FAST. It was a slow start but at the end we had a GREAT economy under Reagan
Wait, what? We had a "GREAT" economy under Reagan? Arguably, inflation dropped sharply and marginal and effective tax rates were, in toto, significantly decreased (despite the passage and signing into law of one of the largest tax increases ever), but to say the economy as a whole was "GREAT" is a bit of an exaggeration. He presided over a stock market crash that was poorly handled. And when he left Office, he had more than tripled the federal deficit. You did know all of this, right?
This isn't to take away from some of the things that Reagan did do. I agree with some of his policies vis–à–vis the economy, but let's not sanctify the man. Now, now, don't freak out. You can still furiously masturbate looking at Ron's portrait, just like little teenage girls do with Justin Bieber. But please keep it in the privacy of your own home. Nobody wants to watch that shit.
If Obama really gave a shit, he would be listening and caring about the polls and what people say and who is turning on him, he doesn't. To me this tell me he doesn't give a shit and this done for pure power and ego.
Obama isn't the first lame duck President to not pay attention to the polls and "champion" his agenda. Bush did it, Clinton did it and Reagan did it.
When things started going south for Clinton and realized what he was doing during his first term wasn't working and people didn't want what he was spewing, he quickly turned it around and came back to center/left and worked with rebublicans....it won him a second term.
Arguments about the "spoiler" role that Perot played aside, what won Clinton a second term was his charismatic personality and the fact that he was running against Bob Dole. Dole was a skilled politician, but he had the personality of dry meatloaf and he was way too old and out of touch, and that shows.
I think that Clinton, for all the turbulence during his Presidency, was moderately successful. What's surprising is that he was moderately successful despite the fact that he had to deal with people like Newt Gingrich. I agree with you that his ability to work somewhat effectively with the Republicans was surprising.
I might not like what Clinton stood for but I wouldn't mind having someone like him back in if it came down to having a Dem back in the presidency.
I wouldn't mind Bill Clinton either, especially the current, more "seasoned" and "polished" Bill Clinton even if I don't agree with many of his positions, especially when it comes to the economy.
