Date registered: Aug 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Actually I did read them completely and in context. That is why your current position seems so incongruous. It is anathema to nearly everything you have said about Bushie and Reagan Economic policies for the past three years.
In the past you have given Bushie credit for every nuance of economic growth this country has experienced and defended every Policy he has had when that policy has proven wrong, in error or weak. Until today. Today you took a new tact that tries to say that a President can't affect National economics on most any level. Now you say that all those Tax Cuts that you promoted, all those FED decisions that you promoted, all those bailouts for the Financial sector [like Bear Stearns] were just a waste of time and money because the President can't do shit. All those stimulus checks were just a drain on the national reserves.
Are you sure you didn't just come to the realization that Bushie is ineffective at positive changes in the economy and that Bushie is ineffective in defining an Economics Doctrine that has been able to govern this country's fiscal security?
I believe that the first step is Admitting that there is a problem. Welcome.
First of all, your liberal myopia makes it impossible for you to see (understand) what I actually say. And second of all, I never said that their policies did nothing, just that the economy was too dynamic and resilient to be "controlled" by them. Your problem, as w/ sooo many things, is that you make flat-out, ridiculous, statements leaving the impression that the economy is "control" by what the administration does. As usual, you see the forest, but not the trees! And there always seems to be a rain cloud over your head--even on the most beautiful, sunny day.
Don't believe everything you think