Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why does everyone blame Obama for our economic situation?

After all, it STARTED in 2007 and continued to worsen throughout 2008... I believe the person in charge at that point was Bush, not Obama. So why do people suddenly blame him for the 650K plus jobs lost, the highest unemployment rate since 1983 (I think), and an economy that is beginning to rival the economy of the great depression? After all, it takes more than 8 weeks to get that ball rolling!

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 1:59 PM on Mar. 7, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (65)
  • Democrats in Congress had a small majority for 2 years but not enough to overcome Bush's vetoes. The problems in this country did not start in2007. They started when the Repubs took away the protections america's workers had and actually gave tax breaks to those companies that shipped jobs overseas. No jobs, no houses, no taxes, big mess. As to the race card, i too get tired of it, but anyone who blames Obama for the problems we have now when he has been in office so short a time may have a problem with his race. As to the pork in the stimulus bills, what the repubs are calling pork is actually job creation. Try checking history as to what got us through the last depression
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:50 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • It started in 2007? Really? Wow! That's news to me.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:59 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • Because thats how people act if their party didn't get elected.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:01 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • I don't I blame him what looks to be making it worse.The massive spend spend spend and loaded with pork.Which he said he;d NOT SIGN he'd veto.he lied.

    I do also blame some of the same damn people sitting in congress you know the ones who helped start and gained from fannie and freddy.Then said oh no no it's all fine.Bush messed up too? YES absolutely when he started spending too damn much like a dem.
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 2:03 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • He ran for office and when elected became the person in charge of the economy. He is where the buck stops. He can say he inherited he actually chose this. He has made it worse in just a few short weeks. He has spent more in a couple weeks than Bush did in 8 years. I would say he is plenty responsible. He was also a part of Congress for the two years the economy was tanking and did nothing about it other than whine about it during his campaign. He could have took a stand then but did not. He wanted things to tank so he could beat the Republicans. He has his role as do others in Congress and Bush. Don't forget the citizens who lived outside their means for way too long and expect others to pay for it now.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:03 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • some good points anon
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 2:05 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • You're right, Anon, he did nothing in Congress to change it except OPPOSE EVERYONE OF BUSH'S IDIOTIC PLANS!!!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:09 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • Choosing to not vote is not opposing it is being a coward.lol BTW Democrats were in charge of Congress the past two years. Bush signed Democrats legislation you all should love him.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:12 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • Because they are bitter and want to blame someone.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:13 PM on Mar. 7, 2009

  • Choosing to not vote is not opposing it is being a coward.lol BTW Democrats were in charge of Congress the past two years. Bush signed Democrats legislation you all should love him.

    And he vetoed everything they tried to put throug so you can't blame them, blame Bush.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 2:14 PM on Mar. 7, 2009