I know of obamas policies, and i disagree with them. Not every single one of them, but more than a few. Romney has not said every single thing he would cut or tweak, because if he does, you get idiotic sideshows like the "big bird" thing because he said he would cut PBS. Both romney and obama have given broad outlines of what they woudl cut, but neither has said what they would cut exactly, what programs, what department. Candidates dont do that because then peoples eyes glaze over.
Well you keep using the Obama line that Romney will "raise" defense spending by 2 trillion, when he plans to not cut it by that amount. he corrected him on that several times in the debates. You seem to expect Romney to itemize and go line by line for things he would cut, on national TV, which is pretty unrealistic.obama has not really said what he would specifically cut either. what parts of the military is he cutting? Why is it being cut? would it reduce our ability to project power or defend ourselves? You seem to think no crisis requiring military means will spring up during the next four years, which is a bad bet to place. Saying we arent going to use it implies the world will go according to plan, history shows it almost never does and things can go wrong.
Owning stock does not mean the business owns you, it means you own a part of a business, through shares. The economcy did do ok under bush. the years 2001-2007 saw a high amount of economic growth. But everyone focuses on 2008. First off 2008 was not caused solely by bush. The housing market collapsed, which caused issues with the banks because of bad debt in the housing market. The banks started collapsing because of the debt which eld to problems in most of the economy.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/ shows both sides. But I am much like the article, thinking (wait for it) both sides messed up. Blaming only bush is just wrong, since much of what caused the economic collapse was not in the presidents hands in the first place.
So unemployment went up in a recession. Shocking. See previous area, bush does not deserve all, or even most of the blame. It was caused by the housing market collapse causing other issues in the economy. The war in the middle east WAS bushes fault. Iraq was a war he *chose* to get into, but the iraq war did not cause the 2008 financial collapse. And many seem to forget what Bush did to keep the economy from going over the edge. he actually did a lot. for example, TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was passed under Bush, not Obama. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program ) The bank bailouts were also done under bush, not obama. And another thing that many democrats ignore, even the Auto Bailout, of GM, chrysler, and Fored, was done under Bush. Of course Obama is taking credit for it, but he didn't sign the bill. (
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html )
So why is Obama takiing credit for the auto bailout when he didnt even sign it? Many people seem to be ignorant of the Bush ears, partly because many were so blinded by hatred they went into hate-seizures every time his name is mentioned. Most of the economic bills that actually saved the economy were passed under Bush, not Obama. Bush was not a great president, but pretending it was obama saving the economy ignores a lot of things Bush did. The 2008 recession ended in June 2009, after Obama was in office just 6 months. Obama did pass the stimulus biill in February of 2009, but that did not end the recession. (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...35341e-e176-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html ) Most of the heavy lifting, saving the banks and GM, was done by Bush, the pull out from iraq by 2011 was also negotiated in advance by Bush. (
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835 )
Of course most of these things are forgotten by democrats, because they were too high off obama winning to really notice. Many of these things came down in late 2008, before Bush left office on january 20th, 2009. The president doesnt pack his bags and leave on the day after election day. Bush was the president until jan. 20th, so everything that happened between elction day and jan. 20th is Bush, not Obama.
Bush did a lot before he got out of office, he was the one that established the framework for pulling otu fo Iraq. he was the one that signed the bailouts and TARP., so likely saved the economy. As soon as april, economists were saying the US was out of recession, much of that was due to Bushes policies, not Obamas (who had been in office for less than 6 months). You give obama too much credit, and Bush too little.
If you know Obama's policies, then how are you possibly confused on what his policies and plan are? He's had 4 years. It's pretty obvious what he's going to be doing. Obama has given what he's going to cut, and he's done some already, because he's the President. He's not hiding anything, whereas Romney is. If Romney's plans are to cut PBS, then yeah, it deserves to be ridiculed, because PBS is like a fraction of a percent - If that is all we know of him, then that's how stupid and ridiculous he looks. If he doesn't want to look stupid and ridiculous, then he should've elaborated more.
I keep using that line that Romney will raise it by 2 trillion, because just as
your own source said, he is going to raise it by 2 trillion. They just haven't specified
where yet, but the number is 2 trillion. I never Romney should itemize or go into some big'ol Red Herring argument.
We currently have no use for the trillion we're spending on military, so adding 2 trillion more - Like both of our sources have agreed upon - Is absolutely pointless. We're over-spending as it is, why spend more?
Owning stock does not mean the business owns you. You're right. But again, I never said that. You're connecting dots that I never placed and projecting your personal bias onto what I've said. However, investing in companies that are outsourcing jobs looks pretty shitty for a guy who wants to be President and claims he wants to create jobs
here, in the country he wants to run. 2001-2007 saw a big economic growth, I'm not disagreeing on that, but like I said before, it was the calm before the storm. We were setting ourselves up for a big fall, and that is what happened - I don't see many analysts disagreeing with that sentiment. The recession wasn't solely caused by Bush, I again, I never said it was. Are you going to keep projecting your personal bias and adding words to damn near everything I say? However, Bush was President. He could've done
something, or at least
tried to halt it, but he didn't until it was way past already happening. Where are the bills, policies, laws, or what have you that Bush tried enacting to try and stop banks from giving ridiculous mortages and all those things that lead to the housing collapse? He reacted to it, but did nothing preventative. Almost all of those things listed on that source you linked were things Bush could've at least
tried to do something about
before they caused problems.
You're missing the point. You see that part where it says:
"which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market." That part?
That is what helped contribute a lot to all the other problems listed on that page. Bush did next to nothing when it counted.
I never said the Iraq war caused the 2008 Financial collapse, but it sure was a couple hundred billion dollars we could've used for something else, wasn't it?
TARP was too little too late, wasn't it - I dunno how long he was debating on it, but don't you think those were things he should've much earlier, when signs were pointing to a problem years earlier? Rather than as a reaction to how shitty it got at the end of his final term? TARP was aimed more at trying to handle the sub-prime mortgage crisis, a bank bailout. ARRA, under Obama, was to create jobs and provide transparency, accoutability, etc. They are 2 large, but different beasts - Though ARRA did include a couple billion towards banks as well, and there were other cash-for-cars programs. TARP did little to promote the economy or stimulate job growth - I do see people attributing the auto bailout to Obama, it was signed in 3 months before Obama took presidency.
I don't see what economic bills were passed under Bush when it counted, since he passed TARP in the last 3 months of his presidency, and TARP was aimed only as a bank bailout, not an economic recovery as a whole - It was just to stop shit from getting worse, since he failed to pass something preventative during the first 7 years.
I guess you can say the 2008 recession ended in 2009, but it was the cause of the 2009-until-now recession that we're still recovering from. So it's a little semantic to say it ended, since it largely caused a second recession immediately after it "ended". The jobless rate continued to grow until 2010, and it rarely leveled out. 700 billion towards the banks isn't "heavy lifting", because it didn't stimulate the economy or grow where we needed it to - Like I said before, it merely helped halt things from getting too out of hand under the same guy who did nothing to stop it earlier. Good job, Bush did nothing to stop it from happening, but when it finally came to his attention years after it was an obvious problem, he did something to slow one portion of the recession that he did little to prevent.
You don't give credit to a police officer who witnessed a house burglary on duty; when it was his responsbility to stop it, and he had the power to do so, but he didn't until the robbers had their van almost completely full, and
then stepped in to stop it. Sure, if you look at the big picture, he did in fact stop it...eventually. Though if you look at the details, that officer could've stepped in at annnny time during the robbery, and not wait until damn near the end to do something. That is why I give him so little credit, and that's why he deserves so little credit.
Or did you seriously vote for that retarded mormon?
