Change???
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Change???

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853

    Exclamation Change???

    George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.



    A little over one year ago:
    1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
    2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
    3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
    4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
    5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...



    But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR we got more change than we wanted:



    1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;
    2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
    3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
    4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
    5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
    6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!



    YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....



    REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS DOES.



    AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.



    NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!



    JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND P.S. I'am not the author of this post.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    This may be true, but the blame should go not to Congress, but to the man in charge, and that's the president, and that's the way it should be whether things are going well or badly. For instance:

    -President Buchanan is generally considered to be one of the worst presidents in history because of his failure to act when South Carolina seceded from the Union, and was followed by 10 other states. Does anyone blame Congress for its failure to pass legislation prohibiting the secession? Of course not; he was the man in charge, so he gets the blame.

    -Conservatives generally consider Ronald Reagan one of the greatest presidents for winning the Cold War. Has anyone ever given credit to Congress for providing him with the funding he needed to do this? Again, of course not; Reagan was in charge, so he gets the credit.

    I could give numerous other examples, but the fact remains that when things go bad (ie., poorly behaving children, a poorly performing company, etc.) the blame (rightfully so) should fall on the person in charge. The same goes when things are going well. A good president would have been able to keep things going well no matter which party Congress is controlled by. All the information presented in the post shows me not so much that Congress has failed, but that President Bush has failed in his leadership. Remember what Ronald Reagan was able to accomplish with a House that was under Democratic control during his entire presidency? And do you know why he was able to accomplish these things? Because he was a great leader, that's why, and great leadership ability transcends politics.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    Ah yes but Reagan had the kahunas to invite the speaker of the house and the senate into the oval office for a chat anytime he did not get what he wanted, that is where Reagan was a true politician.

    Bush on the other hand is not made of the same stuff, a Little more timid, and with a Democratic controlled congress which works to neuter him at every step has had a very hard time of it. He would have indeed taken some lessons from Ron, and made it a one on one and likely accomplished more.

    But you are very right on one thing in the oval office the sign reads "The Buck Stops Here" and what ever happens is and always will be the presidents fault one way or another, So how did Clinton skate out of it?

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    Ah yes but Reagan had the kahunas to invite the speaker of the house and the senate into the oval office for a chat anytime he did not get what he wanted, that is where Reagan was a true politician.

    Bush on the other hand is not made of the same stuff, a Little more timid, and with a Democratic controlled congress which works to neuter him at every step has had a very hard time of it. He would have indeed taken some lessons from Ron, and made it a one on one and likely accomplished more.

    But you are very right on one thing in the oval office the sign reads "The Buck Stops Here" and what ever happens is and always will be the presidents fault one way or another, So how did Clinton skate out of it?
    Good question. Especially since Clinton had more to do with the September 11th attacks than Bush did. Consider this:

    -The first World Trade Center attack in 1993, which was linked to al Qaeda;
    -The Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, also linked to al Qaeda, in which 19 Americans were killed;
    -The embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, also linked to al Qaeda;
    -The USS Cole attack in 2000, also linked to al Qaeda

    These five attacks, to which Clinton initiated virtually no response (with the exception of the cruise missile launch to Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 in response to the embassy attacks; none of the suspects were killed in those cruise missile attacks, by the way) were all linked to al Qaeda. As much as I dislike Bush, I'm certain he would not have allowed us to be attacked 5 times. In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that if Bush had been president during the first World Trade Center attack, none of the others, and thus, 9/11, would never have happened.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Good question. Especially since Clinton had more to do with the September 11th attacks than Bush did. Consider this:

    -The first World Trade Center attack in 1993, which was linked to al Qaeda;
    -The Khobar Tower attacks in Saudi Arabia in 1996, also linked to al Qaeda, in which 19 Americans were killed;
    -The embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, also linked to al Qaeda;
    -The USS Cole attack in 2000, also linked to al Qaeda

    These five attacks, to which Clinton initiated virtually no response (with the exception of the cruise missile launch to Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 in response to the embassy attacks; none of the suspects were killed in those cruise missile attacks, by the way) were all linked to al Qaeda. As much as I dislike Bush, I'm certain he would not have allowed us to be attacked 5 times. In fact, I'll even go as far as to say that if Bush had been president during the first World Trade Center attack, none of the others, and thus, 9/11, would never have happened.
    Darn here we go agreeing again, so much for a stirring debate, yep Ole Billy boy should have been tried for treason, but they could not get a clear definition of "is" out of him.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheldon View Post
    Darn here we go agreeing again, so much for a stirring debate, yep Ole Billy boy should have been tried for treason, but they could not get a clear definition of "is" out of him.
    I think that this bolsters my original argument in the thread, and that is that great leaders achieve good results, and poor leaders don't. Unfortunately, of the five men who've been in the White House in my lifetime, the only one who did a good job in that regard was Reagan. Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 were absolute failures in that regard.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast