Bad analogy. Bush might have stayed, or tried to, if he had any say in the matter. Also, have you heard Bush saying anything at all, much less blaming Obama?

So the economy magically has to change on January 21st, 2009 or he's a failure? It doesn't work that way. According on one estimate, the wars, the Bush tax cuts and the economic downturn are the major components of the deficit:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-1...6-28-10-f1.jpg
And if you don't like that one, then The Pew Center found that it was

Revenue declines due to two recessions, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%

Now if you want to bash him for continuing the wars and renewing the idiotic tax cuts, I'll be right there with you. But don't act like some $500 million loan guarantee to a podunk company made things worse.

See how much stronger an argument is when you have data rather than partisan bombast?

Well?

The "stimulus" spending was simply wasted money. You can't claim microeconomic effects of "stimulus" (which would be made up numbers of jobs saved) unless you allow similar made up numbers for effects of lower taxes.

Myself, I'm fine with lower taxes, even if it lowers revenue, just cut spending if need be. Note that I don't care about having zero debt, but over 100% of GDP is too much. Hold it between maybe 50-75% of GDP and I'd be fine with it (lower gives us slop in case we need to fight another big war).

Medicare D is only 2% now, but will get way worse. Medicare needs to be scrapped, or severely limited. It's poised to make SS look solvent in comparison (SS will hold at like 6% of GDP as I recall, MC gets way higher).

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...A0Medicare.gif
If that is not scary to you... Medicare needs to go away, basically. Or massive increases in copays. No amount of taxation will fix that. It's heading towards more than the feds collect, period. Even the highest rates of tax revenues during the Clinton years are around half what will just be needed, with Medicare almost equally all tax collections during those years (FY 2000). You could confiscate ALL income of the top 1% and not pay for it.

Capping government spending at ~20% of GDP is entirely reasonable. Then we have our representatives decide what the priorities are for spending a finite amount of money instead of letting them spend an infinite amount, instead. That's not unreasonable.

Still the same Presidents.
If Obama has made it worse then you must be able to show that another President could have made it better.

I may be partisan, but there's a lot of that going on here. I know I'm the young gun, but please don't single me out

Thats funny. You want some "hypothetical" presidential holder to be named and then show he/she could have done better... :doh:

Were that even possible - you would simply note that since its hypothetical - its not "proof".

Use logic. "If Obama has made it worse" - ok - worse than what? This has to be a REAL, measurable thing. Thankfully - we have that - with historical numbers - so the answer becomes "worse than it was prior to his taking office".

I like how you keep trying to move the goal post, though.

Then you had better have something to replace it or the senior vote alone will sink you. It's obvious that medical treatment is unaffordable for most seniors and even medical insurance is unaffordable for most seniors. Shall we just put our elderly on ice flows and let nature take it's course?

What was Obama allowed to do in his term? Not much. Not much at all.He has to work his way through the stingy republican-dominated house to get anything real done.

"blame Obama" Hahaha. its quite mind boggling who people point to fingers at when faced with consequences. Blame Obama. isnt he the all mighty PRESIDENT? He lied to get into office. So has every other politician. What CAN Obama do. every one of his ideas is shot down by the right wingers. You quote how the cost of living, unemployment, and debt has shot up, but exactly how does that relate to the president. Gas, food, electric, ect. are ALL private sector. they go on and on about obama when the private sector essentially controls the price of living. The private sector is a greedy joke. You think that the oil companies are really "dangerously low" in supply? HAHAHA! They completely embellish their over the top prices with their lame, outrageous lies. Last i checked, banking and the housing market go hand in hand. Who exactly did we "have" to bail out? who exactly gambled away in the housing market and lost?

instead of pointing fingers at the real culprits, they blame the one with the LEAST amount of power.

It is a tradition in politics for Presidents to blame predecessors and not successors. Bush Jr blamed Clinton for plenty.

That is one of the admirable traits of Jr. He is following tradition. I will salute him for that :salute:

Yeah, damn that Clinton for sticking BushJr. with a balanced budget, a surplus, and a healthy economy; at least Bush Jr. fixed those problems... :DL

The public likes complicated issues reduced to simple terms.

This person is bad

The problem was caused by this

The solution is that.

The reality is much more complex than that. But let's be honest, how much does the average citizen really understand about how our government works?

The President is the Chief Point of Blame for the country. By design, the President has limited powers concerning the running of our country.

I always snicker when people lament about why Bush/Obama was/is not doing more to create jobs. What exactly can the President do to create jobs other than expand the Executive Branch?

-Change tax rates? That's congress
-Change laws? Congress
-Cut taxes? Congress handles that
-Change tax deductions/expenditures? Congress
-Change government spending? Congress
-Decide where money already appropriated gets spent? President with restrictions from congress, so that's something

But somehow not only are our problems the President's fault, the solution, somehow is also the President's responsibility.

The President ASKS congress. The President never TELLS congress to do anything. I don't care who is in power, congress is never going to allow any president to forget the power of congress.

The problem is congress, as a whole, in both chambers. Congress is the only branch authorized by the constitution to cause and fix these problems.

But the president sure makes a handy scapegoat. :yep:

It must suck to be blamed for not doing what you are not authorized to do by law.

Now if we can only get the citizens to understand how and why congress is making or not making their decision and vote accordingly.

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Like that will ever happen.

And Clinton bitched about Bush Sr. Hell, Bush Sr bitched about Reagan.

It is what you do when you are POTUS. :x

Only for one of the three years he's been in office. The large majority of his presidency so far has been with his party in full control of both houses of congress.

In fact the only reason he still doesn't have both houses is because he went on a crazy spending spree with the public's money.

Yes, dangit for extending the Bush tax cuts at the expense of the deficit, and extending/expanding wars that the hawks deemed necessary lest he be labeled soft on terrorism, and dangit for having the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression to deal with.

He's made some stupid decisions, but please, let's give credit where credit is due.