During the bad economic times in Bush's terms, when all the Dems were blaming him for the poor economy I saw many Republicans claim either 1. It wasn't his fault because it takes time(4-8 years I was told) for new presidents policies to take effect and we were just seeing the fallout from Clinton or 2. Presidents have little impact on the economy and it's all cyclical regardless of who is in office.
Which is it and why doesn't the same apply to Obama?
Answer by LoriKeet at 12:13 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Answer by NotPanicking at 12:17 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Well, sit down, because I do agree with you to a point. I think the bailouts were crap and if businesses are poorly run they should be left to fail. I would certainly feel for those affected by it but that is capitalism. The fact that we allow some companies to become "so big they cannot fail" seems to be an issue.
There were a number of homeowners who fell prey to fraud and I believe we should have tried to work out a way to help them, if they could prove fraud.
Answer by Friday at 12:18 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
I was against the stimulus but it seems Reps have been blaming Obama for the faltering econ since he was elected, even before he had a chance to take office.
Answer by Friday at 12:19 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 12:25 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 12:26 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Answer by JanMarie225 at 12:27 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Answer by NotPanicking at 12:27 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
anon 9:26 could you please cover your mouth when you yawn? You trolls have some nasty junk flyin outta there.
Answer by Friday at 12:29 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 12:32 PM on Mar. 14, 2009
Featured Posts in All Groups