Skip to main content

View Diary: What we have left to do (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eight years of bush (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, Calamity Jean, BoxNDox

    Why are democrats not putting more (or all) of the blame for the current economic problems on the 8 years of ruinous bush rule that we had to endure.

    Everyone knows that that it takes much longer to create than to destroy, and after 8 years of damage caused by bush and company (including running up the majority of our debt), how can someone in two short years fix this damage. Why, when republicans tea party people lay the blame of all of this on Obama is the retort that most of the damage was caused by the republicans under bush, and that it will take (as Obama said many times at the beginning of his tenure) many years before we can fix the mess we were in in 2008.

    I don't understand why it is so hard for Democrats to collectively be on message and hammer this point home. A vote for the tea party or a vote for republicans is a vote to bring back the deregulation and spend foolish policies of the bush administration. Republications will only allow the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer, and long-term strategic thinking to evaporate (as it did under bush). Do the tea party people want this to return?  

    Now, you might say that much of the deregulation occurred under Clinton in the late 1990s, but something else I haven't seen addressed is the following. The economic climate in the 1990s was very different than what it was in the mid current decade (say around 2004). Deregulation made more sense in the late 1990s due to the economic boom we were going through (there was immense excitement, investment, and in general it was thought wise to deregulate to encourage rapid investment, development, creativity, etc.). After the dot-com bust, under the bush administration, that was the time to re-regulate (it became clear then) but it was bush who did not "pull in the reigns" to re-regulate and keep the current economic meltdown from happening.

    Again, why do the democrats not collectively be on message and mention this over and over. The only thing republicans are good at is getting the rich richer and collectively being on message (and its been like this for a long time).

    •  Simple answer to you question: (0+ / 0-)

         

      After the dot-com bust, under the bush administration, that was the time to re-regulate (it became clear then) but it was bush who did not "pull in the reigns" to re-regulate and keep the current economic meltdown from happening.

      Why should an politician (Bush) bite the hand that feeds him?

      It seems the guy on our so called side would protect His side.

      The truth of what happened is the truth. What was done by our guy gave power to the next guy. FACT!
      And what Obama does not change in is one or two terms will leave the next POTUS with that much more power. Such as  Govt. national spying powers, and court rulings or something like that, that makes it legal.
      So do we also defend Obama when the next TeaBagger becomes President and uses those same powers to start a new "Watergate" spy on Progressives?

      •  RE: Eight years of bush (0+ / 0-)

        Why should an politician (Bush) bite the hand that feeds him?

        Well I of course am not questioning why bush didn't do that. Bush is of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

        The point is, why don't democrats say:
         1) The current economic problem is caused by 8 years of bush ruinous rule.
         2) It takes longer to create than to destroy, and you can't fix 8 years of mess with only 2 years of sensible policy (in an extremely polarized climate). Obama said this at the beginning
         3) Ergo, Obama should not be blamed for this problem. Bring the tea party back in, and the problem will get worse again.

        To quote Obama's inaugural speech (Jan 20, 2009):

        Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

        LESS THAN TWO YEARS IS A SHORT SPAN OF TIME!!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site