tomato tomahto. he didnt promise it verbatim, but his administration did state same with a graphic prediction as part of their argument to get the bill passed. the president is responsible for his underlings, thats what an administration is all about. so what if it isnt a direct quote, it was used by him and his administration as the reason to pass the bill, and it was wrong.
Originally Posted by Buzz
with your logic the issue of transparency - remember having 5 days to read a bill online and having it on c-span ??? - was not a promise either because the word "promise" wasnt used.
here's a democrat admitting it even
regardless, the intent and deception is real.
How many jobs were we "promised" when Bush ran his tax cuts through congress? How many have they produced?
Originally Posted by david gibson
If you are going to accuse a man of breaking a promise, it shouldn't be that hard to find out where he made the promise. He didn't. His economic team made a forecast based on the information available of what would happen if nothing were done. They listed a lot of reasons why that forecast might be too optimistic. It turned out to be too optimistic.
Originally Posted by david gibson
The underestimate didn't cause the problem. The problem was already there, courtesy of eight years of economic insanity. I believe that, in his last few months in office, Bush acted almost rationally for the first time and took actions that helped avert an even greater disaster -- backtracking on almost all that he had championed before. Obama tightened up some of those actions and added his own that also served to mitigate the impact of the disaster.
Nobody had the power then or now to take us back as if the disaster had never happened. The problem with screwing things up royally is that there is no quick fix. That was true for Iraq and Afghanistan and is true for our economy.
It will take us over 10 years to fix all that was broken by the profligate stupidity of the last administration,. It is not clear that the current administration can get the job done, but it is clear that we will fail by returning to the same types of policies that got us here to begin with.
Even if the economy is "fixed", the fix is likely to be at a standard of living more compatible with what we produce instead of the lifestyle we lived by charging the cost to someone else. Some people seem to be demanding a return to the fictional economy we saw in 2004-06. That is like an alcoholic assuming that his "cure" will allow him to go back to drinking two bottles of rotgut a day.
The cure for an alcoholic is to live without alcohol. The cure for what ails our economy is to reach a point where we are operating without any deficit on a long term basis (allowing for a mix of short term deficits and surpluses to counter natural fluctuations in the economy). That means, through a mix of private and public action, funding both our productive years and our non-productive years, and it means paying our bills when we are sick as well as when we are well. No one can fix our problems over night and any real solution is going to add to the pain along the way.
personally, i dont see it as breaking a promise at all. its more like a deliberate misleading to get support for his agenda. dishonest at the core.
more than 10 years to fix what you say the last administration flubbed up? based on what The Apologist is doing, add another 30 yrs to fix his idiocy.
from what i recall the last administration operated in a far more bipartisan environment. do the nmames frank and dodd mean anything to you? i suppose you think they are just squeaky clean and you can find a way to blame bush for their incompetence as well.
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs