[Zipperfish]

I doubt the sheen will wear off Obama any time soon, at least according to polls. Most Americans still blame the previous administration adn will continue to do so for some months to come. Personally, I don't see how Bush's approach is any different than Obama's. They are both writing huge cheques of taxpayers' money over to the private sector. So is Harper for that matter (although to credit Harper, he was reluctant to bail out anyone with taxpayers' money).

Since the approach of the left and the right appear to be the same, I think this relates to an assumption by both sides that it is the purpose of the people to serve the economy, not vice versa.

[Bibbi]

tritium wrote:

It amazes me how Obama keeps bring up President Bush's 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, to somehow deflect attention away from his $3.6 trillion budget?

What are the American people THAT stupid. Oh yeah, they voted for this tool, so I guess that answers that.

The difference is that Bush ran up a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit in "good times" through reckless expenditures while Harper was spending our surplus.

Now Obama has run up a trillion dollar defecit, while Harper is running a billion dollar deficit.

If Americans are "THAT stupid" to use your words, what does that say for the Canadians that voted for "our tool".

[commanderkai]

Bibbi wrote:

Now Obama has run up a trillion dollar defecit, while Harper is running a billion dollar deficit.

Eh...a bit more than one trillion...and I wouldn't call Bush's years in office good times, especially after 9-11. 9-11 could of started this mess just as easily as what happened in 2007

[xerxes]

But it didn't.

[Proculation]

Zipperfish wrote:

Personally, I don't see how Bush's approach is any different than Obama's. They are both writing huge cheques of taxpayers' money over to the private sector.

So true...

[Bibbi]

commanderkai wrote:

Bibbi wrote:

Now Obama has run up a trillion dollar defecit, while Harper is running a billion dollar deficit.

Eh...a bit more than one trillion...and I wouldn't call Bush's years in office good times, especially after 9-11. 9-11 could of started this mess just as easily as what happened in 2007

Make that a multi-billion dollar defecit, hopefully not a trillion or more, and yes Bush's years were good times economically related to the current meltdown.

[dog77_1999]

Zipperfish wrote:

I doubt the sheen will wear off Obama any time soon, at least according to polls. Most Americans still blame the previous administration adn will continue to do so for some months to come. Personally, I don't see how Bush's approach is any different than Obama's. They are both writing huge cheques of taxpayers' money over to the private sector. So is Harper for that matter (although to credit Harper, he was reluctant to bail out anyone with taxpayers' money).

Since the approach of the left and the right appear to be the same, I think this relates to an assumption by both sides that it is the purpose of the people to serve the economy, not vice versa.

Valid points. Obama's policy has not changed with concern to the financial mess. Not that is wouldn't because the same people are running the programs. Obama might have alot of ideals on how to run things, but I think he is getting a good lessen on the practical side. Iraq is an example. He promised to pull out within a year, now is following the plan left by Bush. He's even increasing troops in Afghanistan, something that Bush was in favor. The only difference is that Obama will spend what Bush would have spent plus social programs.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Zipperfish]

dog77_1999 wrote:

Iraq is an example. He promised to pull out within a year,

Yeah, I've promised to pull out a few times myself.