PDA

View Full Version : What were the things W was ripped for the most?



ndpruitt03
8/7/2009, 01:17 PM
Obama was all about change from the Bush style but he's failed to deliver on all of them. Outside of the Iraq war which we are still in Iraq just not in the major cities. Here's the issues that Obama and the democrats campaigned against.

Earmarks-one of the first bills Obama signed was filled with earmarks and even though he's stated he's against earmarks in 2009 there still have been some that have come through in 2009 also.

Lobbyist were evil when Bush was in office not with Obama though.

Obama talked about the spending under Bush

AD71vErZdAo

So Obama is leading on controlling spending, or he's going to make Bush's spending look like it was nothing. Passes the biggest spending bill ever and then is looking to pass another and the cap and trade and healthcare bills are just more spending bills. Bush's spending was nothing compared to Obama.

The cronyism that was criticized under Bush, has been done much more by Obama with all these Czars yet they are good for America even though they get to do stuff without looking at the constitution?

Tell me were Obama is the anti-Bush?

JLEW1818
8/7/2009, 01:18 PM
people that actually have sense, knew Obama would not fix jack ****

sure some democrats voted for him b/c he was a better bet than JM.... but not all dems thought he would fix things.

ndpruitt03
8/7/2009, 01:22 PM
people that actually have sense, knew Obama would not fix jack ****

sure some democrats voted for him b/c he was a better bet than JM.... but not all dems thought he would fix things.

He's not even trying to fix things yet he's getting praised for it by some dems. I don't get it.

yermom
8/7/2009, 01:24 PM
but his election was historic!

JLEW1818
8/7/2009, 01:26 PM
"where Brown, can stick around"

I'll never get over that lil poem

adoniijahsooner
8/7/2009, 01:38 PM
Jobless rates down first time in a year. Maybe not the best day to say nothing is changing.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/news/economy/jobs_july/index.htm?postversion=2009080708

yermom
8/7/2009, 01:39 PM
i still think it's too soon to say either way. let's see what he's done when he's looking for re-election

ndpruitt03
8/7/2009, 01:40 PM
Jobless rates down first time in a year. Maybe not the best day to say nothing is changing.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/news/economy/jobs_july/index.htm?postversion=2009080708

There's also more people looking for jobs, and it dipped like .1% it basically stayed the same.

1890MilesToNorman
8/7/2009, 01:41 PM
How many times do you need to be fooled?? They all say **** they don't mean to get elected.

OklahomaTuba
8/7/2009, 01:44 PM
So Obama is leading on controlling spending, or he's going to make Bush's spending look like it was nothing.
Pretty much spot on.

Obama makes Bush look like a Penny Pincher.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg

BTW, this doesn't include nationalizing the health care industry (1/6 of the entire national GDP)....

Scott D
8/7/2009, 01:45 PM
Jobless rates down first time in a year. Maybe not the best day to say nothing is changing.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/news/economy/jobs_july/index.htm?postversion=2009080708

those reports are constantly red herrings. Considering that most unemployment claims are for 6 mo/1 yr and a person can legally only file once during those periods. You are bound to run into a period where fewer people are filing because fewer people are left that haven't filed at some point in the previous 6 mo/1 yr span.

JLEW1818
8/7/2009, 01:49 PM
Obama, lol

Scott D
8/7/2009, 01:51 PM
I'd also like to point out that I am at this moment ripping both W and Obama for having big ears that stick well out from their heads.

OklahomaTuba
8/7/2009, 02:01 PM
Racists, all of you.

ndpruitt03
8/7/2009, 02:02 PM
Racists, all of you.

I'm racist against Bush too because I think he was wrong for all of the above in my first post also. But you can't compliment both Obama and Bush for the same things.

OklahomaTuba
8/7/2009, 02:12 PM
Sounds like there may have been a lot of "fudging" the numbers in the birth/death model this month. Depressing if true...


In the table below showing the Household data (source), we can see that the way in which the rate of unemployment dropped from 9.5% to 9.4% was almost entirely due to the fact that 637,000 people were dropped from the labor force - not from an increase in employment.

If we left these 637,000 people in the labor force, then the rate of unemployment would have increased from 9.5% to 9.8%. What's the difference between unemployment slipping to 9.4% rather than increasing to 9.8%?

All the difference in the world when you have a major initiative underway.http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/unemployment-report-distortions/24080

StoopTroup
8/7/2009, 03:56 PM
He's not even trying to fix things yet he's getting praised for it by some dems. I don't get it.

What part of the Dems owning the Pubs in both the House, Senate and White House did you miss?

They don't have to fix anything.

The Pubs screwed up so bad that nobody trusts them for anything and now their mismanagement has put the Dems back in charge of the whole shabang for God knows how long.

Yes...it's pretty disgusting. Prepare yourself for the long haul.:pop: