It's On: W Slams O !

I think people are wanting to see him critize Obama so bad they are trying their hardest to see it in this article.

What Bush said is true. Most people on this site has said the exact same thing (excluding the interrogation part). Now some on this thread are saying he needs to shut up.

I don't get it? Oh well proceed with the bashing.

edit to add- Can someone show me where he was critical or pointing fingers at Obama?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by jd140]

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Well at least "W" was an American, lol

What? You don't like a naturally born Kenyan living in the White House?

[edit on 6/18/09 by Ferris.Bueller.II]

You know actually I wouldn't mind a Kenyan in office, just not this specific Kenyan.


And now I have gone and got myself a warning.

[edit on 013030p://bThursday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Anjin

 

Pardon Me? I thought the point of the OP is that W is pointing fingers? After spending trillions on his own watch.

I'm just setting the record straight as to who has spent what...

Again "setting the record straight" means pointing out that a democrat controlled congress has been doing the spending for the last several years of the Bush administration, not Bush.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Carter and Clinton first, OK?

Remember that until Carter and Clinton started flapping their jaws, it used to be part of presidential protocol (for over 200 years!) that ex-presidents did not publicly criticize current presidents.

Now Carter is obviously a senile, old fool, but what's Clinton's excuse?

By that logic it should be OK for Obama to run up deficits as that's what Georgie boy did first. Right?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by centurion1211
Carter and Clinton first, OK?

Remember that until Carter and Clinton started flapping their jaws, it used to be part of presidential protocol (for over 200 years!) that ex-presidents did not publicly criticize current presidents.

Now Carter is obviously a senile, old fool, but what's Clinton's excuse?

By that logic it should be OK for Obama to run up deficits as that's what Georgie boy did first.

Right?

Sorry, there is no logical comparison from what I wrote to your post.

In your mind, presidential protocol somehow equates to running up budget deficits?

Seems like you're trying way too hard to come up with something to refute my posts this time.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Anjin

 

Pardon Me? I thought the point of the OP is that W is pointing fingers? After spending trillions on his own watch.

I'm just setting the record straight as to who has spent what...

Again "setting the record straight" means pointing out that a democrat controlled congress has been doing the spending for the last several years of the Bush administration, not Bush.

...not to mention the same democratic congress who said there was no problem with Fannie and Freddie while the Repubs were trying to point out the danger. I have always wondered if the pathetic initiation to all this spending through the "Bush bailout" was nothing more than a last ditch attempt to try to swing the votes away from Obama and back to McCain? Like "liberals like to spend so lets spend some and see if we can get back some of the liberal right and moderate independent support." It was stupid either way.

reply to post by centurion1211


Wrong, the logic is the same:

Originally posted by centurion1211

Carter and Clinton first, OK?

Same logic. Bush racked up deficits first thus I infer that it's OK for Obama. Your logic.

reply to post by intrepid


Carter and Clinton were the first to break a traditional protocol, not the same thing IMO.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Wrong, the logic is the same:

Originally posted by centurion1211

Carter and Clinton first, OK?

Same logic. Bush racked up deficits first thus I infer that it's OK for Obama. Your logic.

Seems like I shouldn't have to point this out to a mod, but this thread is actually about an ex-president slamming a current president, not budget deficits. My post that you decided to reply to was totally about the subject of the OP. And your posts? You just seem to want to argue an obscure point not related to the OP at all - almost like a deflection attempt ...

[edit on 6/18/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by glad_to_be_His
reply to post by intrepid

 

Carter and Clinton were the first to break a traditional protocol, not the same thing IMO.

Protocol:

noun: forms of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state

www.onelook.com...



You're right, it isn't the same. Instead of "etiqutite" it's detrimental actions towards the country.

Next.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Wrong, the logic is the same:

Originally posted by centurion1211

Carter and Clinton first, OK?

Same logic. Bush racked up deficits first thus I infer that it's OK for Obama. Your logic.

I don't think Obama cares one bit if anyone approves of his skill at deficit production. He has definitely left W in the dust in this aspect.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/042b1921aef6.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Anjin

 

Pardon Me? I thought the point of the OP is that W is pointing fingers? After spending trillions on his own watch.

I'm just setting the record straight as to who has spent what...

INCORRECT, sir. When Bush left office the budget deficit was in the billions. Since Obama has been in office it is now approaching one TRILLION, not including all of the spending he's been doing.

Please get YOUR facts straight before pointing fingers.

(Last Updated: June 10, 2009: 3:46 PM ET
) NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The federal budget deficit surged in May, bringing the total shortfall for this fiscal year to nearly $1 trillion, government figures showed Wednesday.

The Treasury Department said the May deficit was $189.65 billion, up from a shortfall of $165.93 billion a year ago. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected a deficit of $181 billion.

Source: money.cnn.com...

"We're going to see very large budget deficits for the next couple of years," said Gus Faucher, director of macro economics at Moody's Economy.com.

Running up a deficit is "necessary to end the recession," he said. "But after the crisis is over, the federal government will need to get its fiscal house in order."

And this is what Bush was talking about in his speech. Instead of the government pouring so much money into trying to end this recession, he's saying that the private sector will be the one to do it, and historically, he's right. If anything, all the government is doing by pumping all of this money into system is stoking the fire for massive inflation and devaluing the dollar - so once the end to the recession does come, we may not even know it because the government's "best intentions" may well put us back into an even deeper hole!

And as for the rest of this year, this source says they project a $1.2 Trillion deficit.

www.breitbart.com...

Your posts have often been in defense of Obama, kosmik, but there really is no defense for the man this time. The numbers don't lie.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by sos37]

reply to post by kosmicjack

The fact is, we went from a surplus to a deficit in ten years.

Kinda easy to have a surplus when your playing with fuzzy math.

www.craigsteiner.us...

Personally, the blame game is useless. Both parties are one and the same. Once Republicans take over, they will spend to take care of their own interests.

Morale of the story, tax payers will still be picking up the tab.

What more, are Americans really ready to make the sacrifice?

Are you willing to see government slash spending, eliminate many programs that help many Americans?

reply to post by kosmicjack



So true.

If this idiot didn't want this to happen he shouldn't have set the example. I hate this man even more, and hate Obama equally so. Ditch the dummies.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Gorman91]

reply to post by kosmicjack


Have you seen how much the projected deficit spending is going to grow under the Obama administration's plans?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And in this case it seems as if the President is on a mission to outgrow government and outspend the previous administration... at a depth and magnitude so far beyond anything seen before that it is difficult to imagine or even calculate...This is good how?

If Bush is honest in what he is saying now, then where the hell was he when we needed him?

He is right in what he is saying, but after the fact it hardly matters.

What we need is a people willing to do what it takes to remove all of these criminals from office now and prevent them from rising to power in the future.

They are playing politics with our lives and our future, and the lives or our children and theirs, and we gave them the power and opportunity through our overwhelming apathy.

reply to post by sos37


To say I'm defending Obama, is a mis-characterization. I'm saying they all bite and we're ten years in the hole.

Get your facts straight - you can go through all of my posts and see that I've expressed dissatisfaction for Obama since the election. But more to the point, I've expressed dissatisfaction with hypocrisy in Washington and the PTB in general. However, I didn't realize my posting history was relevant to the point of the OP.

It's unfortunate that often on ATS gross generalizations are made. Is it not possible that I could have contempt for Bush, after eight years of his own making, and not necessarily be thrilled with Obama either?

The thing is, he inherited a mess and has had only five months to fix it. Did I vote for him? Yes. Do I agree with all of his decisions? Hell no. Am I having the tiniest bit of buyer's remorse? A little, then I remember my ballot choices...all likely pre-selected. I took the optimistic path and hoped for change. We'll see.

Chalk yet another ATS thread up to partisanship and fingerpointing.


[edit on 18/6/2009 by kosmicjack]

So george w thinks the private sector will fix the nations economic mess.Who the heck put us here in the first place?Duh!

Originally posted by AgentX09
So george w thinks the private sector will fix the nations economic mess.Who the heck put us here in the first place?Duh!

You really want to see one of the main contributing factors of this recession?

Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

This was done by both parties, and both parties are guilty of it.

Good Ole GW is spot on as usual. He is right that the answer is in giving the private sector the ability to suceed by getting BIG GOVERNMENT out of their way.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Someone needs to remind him that all of these bailouts started on his watch.

I will!
Hey George - OBAMA'S JUST FINISHING WHAT YOU STARTED!
How's that??

edited to add -

reply to post by sos37


KosmicJack was (is?) an Obama supporter but I've found that KJs posts have been open minded about the mistakes that Obama has pulled.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
The thing is, he inherited a mess and has had only five months to fix it.

But he's not fixing it .. he's making it worse.

[edit on 6/19/2009 by FlyersFan]