Take all these polls with a big grain of salt. Quinnipiac poll a few weeks before the election had
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
If you know anything about the 2008 financial crash, you know that no one person was to blame, both private and public. You don't, so you blame Bush. Do some reading about the causes of the crash. Bush was not blameless, but neither was Clinton and even Carter. Not to mention Freddie and Fannie and Barney Frank. And the banks, ratings agencies and investment houses. It was a massive, joint effort.
And yes, the boom of the 1980's brought on by the huge stimulus of lower taxes, lower regulations, military spending and after Volcker's plan to slay inflation (over 13% under Carter) worked.
Clinton had the opportunity to take out Bin Laden in 1998. He did't, so he must be to blame using the logic of OP.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bill-clinton-osama-bin-laden-20140801-story.html
Well I sure as hell don't blame Wendell Wilkie. Yes, I blame FDR. That's what "being at the top" means.
I'm not trying to dump so much blame on Bush per se but I'm trying to balance out the "all credit goes to Reagan but no blame goes to Bush" thing.
I gave you the reasons for the 80's phenomenal growth after the recession ended in 1982. You may not agree as many liberals don't. But a strong stable dollar, low taxes, low regulations, pro business is a strong recipe for economic growth. I also admit that the military spending was stimulative as well.
Can you name another factor that was hugely relevant?
US REAL Growth Rate by Year:
2002 2.04%
2003 4.36
2004 3.12
2005 3.03
Remember GWB tax plan was retroactive to 2003. Some would suggest that tax rate reduction was detrimental, but truly it had the intended positive impact on the economy.
Could not disagree more. If FDR knew about he attack and did nothing to prevent it, I would agree. If Bush knew about the attack before hand, I would agree. Hindsight is 20-20. Neither responsible.
It's like blaming a President for a hu
No question about it especially after the devastation of 9/11.
You're playing games with the word "responsible." Of course the Japanese and Al Qaeda were the ones ultimately responsible for the attacks. I'm talking in terms of how well the US was defended against such attacks. The person at the top gets the credit or the blame. if there had been a big attack under Obama he'd have right gotten the blame.
You posts getting worse by the minute. I used responsible in the normal and usual way. You understand it in the way I intended it. FDR and GWB were responsible for how they responded to the events. They were not responsible for the events unless you have some evidence they know should have know, or reasonably anticipated what was coming. Reasonably anticipating a terrorist will attack does not mean you know the time, place, or manner of the attack. Otherwise we should blame airlines for not having bulletproof and impenetrable cockpit doors. That certainly would have stopped the events of 9/11.
So Obama is responsible for the Orlando and San Bernandino killings and lots of others. Not sure why they didn't stop those crazies.
Opie, who gets credit for a major calamity that happens on Jan 21(First day in office for incoming? Obviously had zero fault, but you want to assign blame based on calendar ? Are you going to assign blame if the outgoing blindly and knowingly provided no defense against the event? You have more ability to reason than you are showing. I suspect the desire to be contrary. True?