In response to jmel's comment:
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
"How about the 63% of Democrats that thought that the Bush adminstration had something to do with 911?"
Something to do is broad enough to include failure to go after before the attacks, a charge fairly aimed at Clinton as well.
Caused or conspired to allow is completely different and would be crazy. And I do know a number of people thought that as well.
"Or........the 65% of Democrats that believed Sara Palin actually did say, "I can see Russia from my house""
LOL. Man, do you really want to go through this again? Allright, so people who thought she said those words were careless and jumped on a SNL bit.
The trouble is that in this case, the SNL bit was for all intents and purposes accurate. She cited the facts that (1) in the right conditions, one can see Russia from "land here in Alaska" (meaning a cold crappy Island no one goes to), and (2) Russian planes sometimes approach Alaskan airspace as proof that she has experience in foreign policy.
"my house" vs. "land here" is completely irrelevant when you look at the sheer idiocy of what she said!
"the 53% in exit polls a mere 4 weeks ago,that still blame Bush for the disaster that this incompetent fool has given us for the last 4 -years?"
I agree that the mortgage crisis and financial crises were not Bush's exclusive fault. Both had been building for more time. I could put more blame initially on Democrats for mortgage crises given the "home ownership society" push (of which Reps also contributed) and more blame on Republicans for the financial crisis (deregulation, which Dems failed to sufficiently fight).
But Bush did start the war in Iraq, which should have been fought to its end in 1991, with much better results. But starting the war wasn't the issue. Iraq didn't have to be a disaster.
Iraq became a disaster because of the sheer incompetence and profound naivety of an administration that thought if you just walked in and killed Saddam, and did nothing to establish an alternate power structure immediately, that:
- The Iraqis, who had been severely tortured as a people, would immediately form a funcitoning government.
- That there would be massive looting that set them back a good decade.
- That disbanding the Iraqi army wouldn't result in the sudden unemployment of 400,000 people, thrown into the chaos.
- That Sunnis, Shia's and Kurds would suddenly all hug and make up; rather than fighting one another now that the only thing worse than eachother was now out of power.
- That all these things and more would not push a huge amount of Iraqis towards sympathzing with incoming Al Queda and other groups.
YES I blame Bush for a trillion+ on Iraq.
YES I blame Bush for trillions+ unfunded prescription plan.
YES I blame Bush for trillions of dollars in missing revenue resuling from a war time tax cut.
Anyone who doesn't is a damned fool, im-not at all humble-o.
None of those things stopped costing money when Obama took office. Why do you think they are no longer Bush's fault?
Oh and I would just love to see what you'd be saying if Obama ordered immediate full evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan upon taking office. Especially if Al Queda strongly re-established itself in both places as a result, and then attacked us successfully.
Yeah ... I'm sure that wouldn't be Obama's fault. But now it's his fault he didn't do that because it cost money not to?
Bottom line: If you look at the actual numbers for the costs of the wars and programs Bush started, and compare them to new spending under Obama, Obama's new spending is way lower.
In 2016 will it still be Bush`s fault?
Obama has spent more than all presidents combined. No surprise that you were/are part of that 53%
CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration passed another fiscal milestone this week, according to new data released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71âÂÂup about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.
That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.
This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during ObamaâÂÂs term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household--or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker. (According to the Census Bureau there were about 117,538,000 households in the country in 2010, and, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 93,641,000 full-time private-sector workers.)
When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.
At the end of January 1993, the month that President George H. W. Bush left office, the total national debt was $4.1672 trillion, according to the Treasury. Thus, the total national debt accumulated by the first 41 presidents combined was about $44.8 billion less than the approximately $4.212 trillion in new debt added during ObamaâÂÂs term.
As of Monday, Obama had been in office 986 daysâÂÂor about 32 and a half months. During that time, the debt increased at an average pace of $4.27 billion per day. Were that rate to continue until ObamaâÂÂs term ends on Jan. 20, 2013, the debt would then stand at about $16.86534 trillionâÂÂan increase of more than $6.2 trillion for ObamaâÂÂs four years.
That would equal nearly $53,000 for each American household or more than $66,00 for each full-time private-sector worker.
That total national debt did not exceed $6.2 trillion until 2002, when George W. Bush was president.
A non-responsive question followed by a non-responsive copy/paste.
I see I waste my time responding to you in a thoughtful post.
I suppose I'll just have to leave 12AM to yell at you.