Will Obama ever stop blaming George W Bush directly or indirectly ? If he isn't elected will he be blaming George W. Bush as he leaves the Whitehouse ?
PEEPL
2011/07/28 02:43:08
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
58% | ||
|
12 votes
|
|
17% | ||
|
17 votes
|
|
25% | ||
And what grabs my attention is the denial by Obama supporters, Dem supporters, independents, and Repub supporters who claim that Repubs have never collectively acknowledged spending during the Bush years -- they have acknowledged such, over and over and over.
That's the reason for the growth of the Tea Party movement, is it not?
Yet, still there are posters on this site like this one -
http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
who have repeatedly claimed to be disappointed Repubs -- abandoned by their party because of excessive spending with which they disagree, yet they trash the Tea Party movement, they trash conservatives, and they SUPPORT Obama and are not critical of even BIGGER spending by the pseudo-Dems and the current administration.
What's wrong with this picture?
NO, he won't stop blaming Bush.
I see no reason Bush should get a free pass.
Then, again ........... I have some swampland in Northern Niger for sale - just for you! ;)
!
CBS’s Bob Schieffer is so oblivious that he questioned whether conservative lawmakers “understand just how serious this debt limit crisis is?” Conservatives are right to question if Schieffer understands how serious the DEBT is. Rather than belittling conservatives desperately fighting to balance the budget, it would help if he could honestly report the devastating impact that out-of-control spending is having on our economy.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was not to be outdone by Bob Schieffer. He compared budget-conscious Tea-partiers to Islamic fundamentalists trying to bring down our country, General Custer attacking the U.S. on a suicide mission, and the white supremacist apartheid government in South Africa.
this is your ridiculous mindset.
Nice racket...
Remember the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with the collective bargaining for teacher's unions? The results are in. Some school districts went from a $400,000 deficit to a $1,500,000 surplus as a result. Why?
It seems that the insurance company that provided all the "so-called" benefits to the teachers, was an insurance company owned and operated by the teacher's union. Since they were guaranteed to get the insurance business from the teachers and the State had to pay for it, and not the teachers, they were increasing the annual costs every single year to become the most expensive insurance company in the state. Then the insurance company was donating millions and millions of dollars to their favorite politicians, who when they got elected, guaranteed to keep funding the unions outrageous costs. In other words, the insurance company was a "pass through" for Wisconsin taxpayer money directly to democrat politicians.
Nice racket, and this is the racket that is going on in every single State that allows collective bargaining. No wonder the States are taking it away.
If you weren't aware of the reasons why Gov. Walker was fighting to take away collective bargaining, it gives you an idea of the problem
more proof of a stupid leftist taking advantage of tax payers.