Who is responsible for current economic conditions of the United States. Congre

1. 70

   davenmidtownposted 12 years ago

   Who is  responsible for current economic conditions of the United States. Congress or the president?
   
   I am interested in your opinions, rants, and factual comments. Have at it people... I value all opinions even if I do not agree with them.

   replyreport
2. 66

   Perspycaciousposted 12 years ago

   The House of Representatives (with a Republican majority) initiates spending legislation but lately has had much of it blocked by the Senate (with a Democrat majority).  What, if anything, that gets bipartisan support can be vetoed by the president (a Democrat).  If it is challenged, even when signed off by the president, the Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional.
   
   All branches of the federal government are responsible for what has come to be the current economic crisis, and just "letting it stew" by partisan gridlock will only make the stew even more unsavory.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Perspycacious: Why do you think so much blame is placed on the president... not specifically Obama, but Bush Jr, Clinton, Carter, Etc.

      replyreport
   2. 66

      Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      For their lack of leadership and dismissal of compromise.

      replyreport
3. 92

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   I will go ahead and be the bad guy. I think most of our problems come back to the people of our country not politicians. Example, There were 2 job fairs held in my county this past week. One on tuesday and one on wednesday. The one on tuesday was for $11.00 an hour jobs while the one on Wednesday had a starting pay of $7.25 an hour. We drove by both out of curiosity and so I could get pictures of the expected lines of people. The $11 an hour job fair had hundreds of people at it, while the job fair at Wendy's fast food had no line of job applicants. The economy would pick up if people just went to work. As a HUGE Dave Ramsey fan, I support the concept of do whatever you have to do to make money and provide for your family. I don't care if you have to work at a job that is "below" you or not. Reality is when you have nothing, something is always better. Mow grass, sell on ebay, dog sit, do something. Sadly we live in a country that promotes lazy people. Make it harder for people to use the system and more people will go to work. Those who say there are no jobs need to look somewhere else. When people begin to realize that something is better than nothing then the economic conditions will improve. Trying to tax companies into hiring will never work. JMO

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Peeples: I do not think this anwer makes you the bad guy....

      replyreport
   2. 72

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Going back to work is good, but when the economic system, run by the private Fed is being repeatedly squeezed to transfer wealth to the super rich, it's only a matter of time before a year's hard work won't buy a loaf of bread. Slaves to banks

      replyreport
   3. 92

      peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If people would stop living lives of debt the banks would go out of business. Debt is not a requirement for life like the goverment makes people think.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Pollyannalanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is not always easy to tread water your whole life, why doesn't our president see to it no job is under $11 an hour, with all the millions we give to non citizens surely our poor are not wrong to expect more?

      replyreport
   5. 92

      peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What about small business that can't afford to pay 11 an hour? Should they be shut down? Some areas you can live comfortable at $7.25 an hour. Not all jobs are worth 11 an hour, pay should be left up to the owner of a company not government.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Peeples..... With all due respect. Please tell me where someone could live comfortably on 7.25 an hour (A Family) Please do the math? After taxes that's a little over 200 per week? If you do know of a place please tell me? And that's 40 hours. Fast f

      replyreport
   7. 65

      BizVT34posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Jthomp42 - under your scenario @ $7.25/hr family of 4, the family would get an earned income tax credit of $5,112 per year, which is equal to about $2.50 per hour in money from tax payers.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      With only the parent working...... That money isn't going to help them live during the rest of the year?

      replyreport
   9. 92

      peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Where I live the average mortgage is 350 a month and the average rent is 400 a month. On a budget I have done it with a family of 4 at that time. Also only about $20 comes out the check toward taxes, claiming 2 which comes back @ tax time.

      replyreport
   10. 0

       JThomp42posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Two adults working for 7.25?? We all need to move there.

       replyreport
4. 65

   BizVT34posted 12 years ago

   Funny you should ask - Just yesterday I posted "What 1 guy wants from his Government" - It doesn't assess blame but does request a solution  http://buyabiz.hubpages.com/hub/What-th … Government

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is not a bad hub... in fact it makes some good points... I would only ad that predicability creates complacient behavior where uncertainly develops leadership... a survival of the fitest approach.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why are people so aversive to assigning responsibility to the parties who are responsible?  Is it because of bullying by the people who did the damage?

      replyreport
5. 79

   Express10posted 12 years ago

   I believe politicians, companies, and regular people have contributed and continue to do so. In politics many push their agendas while putting up every possible roadblock for others with whom they disagree. Others may lose their enthusiasm after they've been in politics for a while and learn how grueling it is to constantly battle what they see as opposition instead of trying to find common ground and do what's best for those who elected them.
   
   Non-politicians have had a LARGE role in this economic environment as well. Many people bought into an overly consumptive lifestyle and got in over their heads through their own stupid choices. Whether or not they understood or read the fine print was their choice, no one bound them and put a gun to their head to buy a home or car they couldn't afford. And for those who chose to invest only in real estate, an old adage should have come to their mind. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket.
   
   Then in education, you have sorely uninformed, might I say absolutely DUMB, students using federal funds to pay for overpriced and non-transferable credits at for-profit colleges that make nearly all of their money off of FEDERAL funds. As Budget360.com recently pointed out, the funds that veterans use at these schools are also FEDERAL, so these schools don't even meet the minimum of having at least 10% of their funds come from sources other than the gov't. These for-profit schools spend less than 20% on students, aggressively pursue/harass students to get them to go into debt that less than half of the students are ACTUALLY repaying. Who pays when the borrower doesn't? WE do. End of rant

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      nice rant... you left out worthless degrees from for-profit universities that cost 30K... but are not respected within the business world...

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks davenmidtown! I actually felt bad about my rant and took out those details because it seemed it was way too long. Thank GOD I'm not in that camp, but I know of idiots who are and angry their crappy "degree" gets laughed at.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      what surprises me is that there is not a class action law suite against for-profit universities like University of Phoenix. Some of the trade schools do a good job teaching trades but they are not passing themselves off as equal to University of CA.

      replyreport
   4. 79

      Express10posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You're right on the nose with that! I'm studying Biology & plan on becoming an AA. I was shocked to find that South University offers an AA program. NO way are they on the level of Emory, Case Western, or Nova Southeastern but they try to act so.

      replyreport
6. 72

   d.williamposted 12 years ago

   We tend to try to pin blame on one particular problem instead of looking at the whole picture.   While all these individual problems do contribute to our current economic crisis, they cannot be individually blamed.   Government agencies set up to oversee and protect the fairness of general practices are only as good as the people who manage (or mismanage) them.
   When we see global leadership taking more than they need, and giving nothing back to the people who they leech off, it takes its toll on the morale of those struggling to just make ends meet. 
   In this country the majority of blame must rest on our politicians and congress.  They are the ones who should have set better perimeters for corporate America and countered the greed instead of taking part in it.  They are the ones who are not participating in the correction of the messes they made.
   Neither party is solely responsible for our current conditions - both must take blame for letting this happen in the first place.
   The different approaches of each party must be met somewhere in the middle to effect changes.  In the past three years the governmental goal was simply to block anything the opposing party tried to accomplish, instead on contributing based on the needs of the people and not the needs of their parties, their benefactors, or their individual bank accounts.
   If the tea party takes over our government it will be the total ruination of our country which has been evidenced by their actions in individual states over the past year or so.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      d. william: what do you think the effect/affect would be if the goal of one party or another was NOT to meet in the middle, NOT to pass laws, but to create resentment, hatrid, and anarchy?

      replyreport
   2. 72

      d.williamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      you would expect to see exactly what we see going on today.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In a two party system, how do one fix this problem if one or the other party will not compremise?

      replyreport
   4. 72

      d.williamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      there is no fix without compromise.  There is only stalemate and the US will go the way of the old USSR.  Unless there is a rise from the ashes of a 3rd (independent) party that works  solely for the people.

      replyreport
   5. 72

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Compromise can be good, but compromise with evil is never good. Take the secretive & private Fed, for instance. Read The Creature from Jekyll Island. Private bankers are sucking the nation dry. Bought politicians are merely playing along.

      replyreport
   6. 80

      Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Events today make it clear how inefficient a two-party system can be. Sure, it can at times create stability, but doesn't always, and right now, this is one of those not so stable times.

      replyreport
   7. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do have to say that I do not feel that either party covers my views entirely and yet together they fail as well... more options for voters seems to be a potential answer.

      replyreport
7. 74

   ThoughtSandwichesposted 12 years ago

   Hey Dave...
   
   I would have to say neither, really.  I would be willing to place the blame on those people that manipulated the housing market in such a way as to let greed get in the way of prudent business practices and then sat back saying "Oh my, this is horrible!"  I would be willing to blame those corporate leaders who were more concerned with pleasing their stockholders (while collecting millions in bonuses) as they allowed risky practices take down large segments of the economy.  These are my two-cents (which is all I can afford in these economic times).

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ThoughtSandwiches: Aren't they kinda one and the same????

      replyreport
   2. 74

      ThoughtSandwichesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Dave...yeah I suppose they are.  I am REASONABLY sure that I had nothing to do with it!

      replyreport
   3. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ThoughtSandwiches... that sounds a lot like... " It comes down to the definition of IS"  ....

      replyreport
   4. 66

      Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Congress had the oversight responsibility for the SEC, for the Banks, for Freedie and Fannie, for Wall Street, along with their conceived need to raise funds so they could get re-elected and do such a poor job of oversight now. Banks too big to fail!

      replyreport
8. 60

   lostdogrwdposted 12 years ago

   the congress and the senate along with Former president Bush and Vice President Chaney . unpaid medicare plan b, super rich tax cut, two unpaid invasion . Former President Clinton signing to repeal The Glass Steagall Act to let the Wall Street unregulated trading banks merge and making heavily regulated commercial banks one in the same and any lose that the Wall Street Bankster make the Government have to make them whole so there never any true lost for them while all the lost are pay by the the people of the United State. but this is fact and check it out. Clinton where out had less than a trillion dollars debt, Bush over 12 trillion debt. that 11 trillion in 8 years and President Obama 4 more trillion in debt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq1zpHF0J04 check this out

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting.... how do you feel about a flat tax... instead of a tax that is based on income... say everyone pay 10%????  or a national sales tax???

      replyreport
   2. 72

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How about eliminating personal income tax?
      
      Cut 5 gov't agencies, bring all our troops home from Corporate cash cow wars and slash $1 Trillion in the first year in office, like Ron Paul has in mind, we could close the IRS. Xtra cash = stimulated econ

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I would feel better if we recovered the money that Bush and Cheney stole and put it back into our treasury, then outlawed lobbying, oil and gas speculation and reregulated back to 1999 standards. Oh. and get rid of the FED.

      replyreport
   4. 66

      Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      dave's follow-on comment would mean that everyone in California would be paying a 20% sales tax (fed. + state)  That wouldn't just be "taxing the fat cats" that would be "hitting under the belt."

      replyreport
9. 76

   Ms Deeposted 12 years ago

   Both the president and the Congress have had poor judgment. However, since both the president and Congress are put there in office by the American people, it comes down to the voters--those who did and did not vote--as the ones who are responsible.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      hmmm... I get the "it's the voters fault... and agree somewhat... but where are the choices, where is the leadership in elections... we are about to have another election and the choices are bad and bad...

      replyreport
   2. 72

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      GOP fraud during the primaries shows how hard it is to get an honest politician in as president. See YouTube, Ben Swann, WXIX Fox19. But GOP and Dems are private clubs. And yet there's evidence of election fraud, too. Programmers and voting machines.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      Ms Deeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If there were enough of the grass roots vote to overwhelm the voting fraud, the latter can be overridden. The voters can choose "the leadership" when they inform themselves to the real facts.

      replyreport
10. 84

    Tom Rubenoffposted 12 years ago

    My beloved America,
    
    Responsibility is not blame.  Responsibility is ownership.  Therefore I rephrase the question:  Who owns the economic conditions of the nation, good or bad?  Is it the president?  Is it the government? 
    
    What about you? 
    
    Both the government and the president are elected.  They only have power because you give it to them.  Yet, although they are in charge of regulating and printing the money, money is controlled by others that we may call, "rich."  Money has no intrinsic value.  Money is ink on paper.  It only has value because we agree to let it symbolize value. 
    
    When people say they need money they really mean they want the means to thrive, grow and enjoy life.  They say they need money because they have been taught to believe that money is the only way to do this.   This is not true. 
    
    I believe that if you make up your mind to thrive, grow and enjoy life, take every opportunity to do so and are grateful for every shred of evidence that shows that you are in fact thriving, growing and enjoying life, the means to help you do so will appear. 
    
    Many people I know say, "The Lord will provide," and he does, again and again.  Many others I know say, "The Universe will unfold exactly as it should," and it does, time after time.  Still others say, "The more you give, the more will come back to you," and I have seen this is also completely true. 
    
    People live good lives because they believe life is good.  They have faith.  Because they have faith they don't worry, and they are rewarded.  I have seen it time and time again. 
    
    Who, then, is responsible for current economic conditions?  Why, YOU are, of course, and I want to thank you.  Life is abundant and excellent and I love it.  Thanks again.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       So YOU is both singular and plural here and we are responsible for our own happiness and lives... which presidential candidate for the upcoming election do you see as YOU?

       replyreport
    2. 84

       Tom Rubenoffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I find much of Mitt Romney's political behavior disturbing and I find President Obama's performance lackluster.  It would be nice to see a candidate outside the two party system move American politics toward a more honest state of being.

       replyreport
    3. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       It would be nice to just see a qualified candidate listed on the ballot for president. It would be better IMO if America threw out the entire Congress and started over... along with their corporate sponsors....

       replyreport
11. 72

    lone77starposted 12 years ago

    There is no single guilty party. But perhaps the single most powerful agency is neither the White House or Congress. It's the very private Federal Reserve central bank. You know, that group of secretive bankers owned by the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.
    
    So long as they can create cash from debt, make secret deals, bail out foreign banks with our money and more -- and do it all in secret or without Congressional oversight, they will remain the ones most responsible for economic conditions in America. Congress has given up their responsibility to the Fed. They did that 99 years ago -- 1913.
    
    Congress comes up with the spending plans, but the Fed enables them to spend as much as they want. The president could put a lid on that lunacy, but he doesn't. Both Bush and Obama skyrocketed the national debt, Obama worse than Bush. And Romney doesn't sound any better with his plans to expand greatly the military and overseas corporate wars.
    
    The president and Congress could be responsible, but they're not.
    
    Help support Dr. Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" effort. His bill passed through the House, but Majority Leader Harry Reid has blocked it in the Senate. He won't let it come to a vote. Flood Mr. Reid's emails and phone with calls to let it go to a vote. Contact both of your own senators and demand their support.
    
    The health of our nation is at stake.
    
    And while you're at it, elect a real president for a change -- one who will honor the Oath of Office. It's about time we legalized the Constitution, again.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Interesting points and a nice rant!

       replyreport
    2. 76

       Ms Deeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Also, replace congressmen and women with those who will work to do away with the FED.

       replyreport
12. 51

    whonunuwhoposted 12 years ago

    It is a shared responsibility and the president has veto capability just as the congress does. The inherited economic conditions from one candidacy to the next plays an important role and the entire problems associated with economic downturns are not any one man's cause or correction. This has to be done unanimously by congress, the president and the general public, working together.

    replyreport
13. 0

    JThomp42posted 12 years ago

    Both. They need to get past their "Personal" feelings and do what they were hired (Voted for) to do. That being what is best for the American people, Without any sort of "Political" agenda. They act like school children. "I'm taking my ball home if I don't get my way." Ridiculous!!

    replyreport
    1. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       hmm... Is not the word "best" the very argument that both political camps use because they both have very different ideas of what "best" means... how do they decide what is best for the people.... do We The People even know what is best for us?

       replyreport
14. 60

    Xenonlitposted 12 years ago

    
    
    The American (if you can still call them Americans) Tea Party is responsible for the current state of the economy.
    
    Having repeatedly and thoughtlessly hung themselves out to dry by loudly vowing to spend more time on destroying the nations first Black President, the Tea Party has essentially destroyed the government's ability to set petty political differences aside in the interests of the nation.
    
    Get rid of the Tea Party and we will see some real hope and change. Also, when right wingers want to blame the president...show them "The Bikini". The bikini is not going away.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       That just about hits the mark, Xenonlit. The Tea Party is incompetent and ruled only by their quest for ideological purity and desire to be rid of Obama. They have greatly harmed our country.

       replyreport
    2. 66

       Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The Tea Party's belief in "smaller federal government, and decisions made locally (closer to the people)" is intended to tap American values which bring government back to the grass roots instead of oversized departments' "one size fits all."

       replyreport
    3. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Maybe so, but you can't shrink the federal government without cutting spending in areas like infrastructure, education or health care, all of which are areas that we have to spend on if we want to move forward.

       replyreport
    4. 66

       Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Is agricultural policy set by somene in DC as good as setting it where the agriculture is?  Is educational policy more responsive to the needs of the city, or town, when it is set in DC where Congress can't even fulfill its oversight responsibilities

       replyreport
    5. 61

       Pollyannalanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Four more years as is will definitely be enough to do us in and if he did nothing good at all the 1st 4 then why would he the 2nd 4 years?

       replyreport
    6. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Its not the policy so much as the funding. Your right, leave local problems up to local governments and communities to solve, won't complain there.  But sometimes those communities need help in the form of money.

       replyreport
    7. 66

       Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If they didn't have to run large DC departments with civil service benefits and retirements, taxes could be less federally and more locally where citizens could actually testify without paying 1,000s to go to DC and try to be heard!

       replyreport
    8. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Local and state governments do raise taxes and spend the money at local and state levels. But sometimes, communities and states are so broke that they need federal assistance. That's why local governments are lobbying for money from the federal gov.

       replyreport
    9. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Just fuel for thought... while I am not a tea party support... there is truth in everything...sort of... so what might be the best traits of the Tea party that could be applied to say the Democratic party?

       replyreport
    10. 66

        Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Stop and think where all that "free 'federal' money" actually comes from (besides China!)  In addition to "tax and spend" it is now "borrow and spend us into further debt.:

        replyreport
    11. 70

        davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        @Perspycacious: I gave up the idea of having to have credit, a bank, or huge debt a long time ago. I gave up Cable TV along with mounds of possessions that I simply did not need. My house is about function and need and not specifically want.

        replyreport
    12. 66

        Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        You have hit the nail on the head!  Our government should learn to live like you do.  Most people can gravitate to a well-run state and locality, sticking around elsewhere...duh?

        replyreport
15. 61

    Pollyannalanaposted 12 years ago

    We may as well admit our government has become corrupt. They all look to line their pockets and those of their rich buddies and by not doing away with lobbying and all these transfers of money and bribes that should be illegal we have let it reach the point of no return. Do you think there are any of them that doesn't have money in other countries for when the day comes we crumble? But let's just blame the working man, well or maybe unemployed now. He should have done better. We are used and abused and never cry injustice and now it is too late. I really believe that. Not one party or another but both. Why is there no better choices for us? We get bad or worse and who knows which is which?

    replyreport
    1. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       All very true! and yet we the people rally around the next election... why I wonder... especially if the choices are not solutions but further causes....

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I am a registered Democrat, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Green or an Independent run for President. We need more contributions from third parties, not less, as it seems to be going now. I agree with your comment.

       replyreport
    3. 61

       Pollyannalanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I guess we can't help but try to stop what is and hope for better. At least it is a hope.

       replyreport
    4. 66

       Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Did you know that former congressmen and senators have access to the chamber floors of those hallowed institutions to lobby their old buddy guys and gals?  Name any citizens' lobby you belong to and tell me what they are dong these days besides AARP.

       replyreport
    5. 61

       Pollyannalanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Probably because we know we have to change what is even at the risk it could be it doesn't appear it could get worse.

       replyreport
16. 80

    Nathan Orfposted 12 years ago

    I would say it is a little bit of both. President Obama chose to focus on health care during his first year in office, even after he promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". But Republicans in Congress are simply not cooperating. They sponsored several "jobs bills" that were largely symbolic and had no chance of passing through the Democratic Senate. But a large part of the problem actually has little to do with Congress or the President; events in Europe, Japan and the Middle East have all taken their toll on the economic recovery, such as it is.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       how about a lot of both? I don't know how people exect to create jobs when the infrastructure that supports jobs is missing... to create jobs would we not first have to build industry?

       replyreport
    2. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Investment in infrastructure was actually a big part of Obama's stimulus. As for industry, some industries should be pulled back from overseas. But, due to changing technology, some industries and jobs are obsolete. Tech is a double edged sword.

       replyreport
    3. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       We should also consider cutting corporate tax deduction for money spend on jobs that are outside of the USA.

       replyreport
    4. 80

       Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You may be right, but I admit I don't have a lot of experience with the issue. I basically support raising taxes all across the board and cutting spending, because doing so would get our fiscal house in order, or some resemblance thereof.

       replyreport
    5. 61

       Pollyannalanaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Obama said look, see if he didn't fix it before  deciding to put him back and just did nothing, not even open his mouth until it was time to start campaigning. He had time turn things around all he did was dish out what was left not to citizens.

       replyreport
17. 0

    danielabramposted 12 years ago

    Wall Street is responsible for the current economic conditions.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Wall Street, the banks, mortgage companies certainly caused the recession.  That it continues with such tragic consequences and mounting debts is a national tragedy which many will say shows a failure of leadership at the national level.

       replyreport
18. 77

    bridalletterposted 12 years ago

    I have never seen so many  republicans block and slow down growth for the sake of making it look like the President is doing nothing. The only two things they repeatedly vote on (over 35 times for each) are abortion laws and appealing Obama care. I also think historically when a President runs us into the ground, it takes a minimum of 10 years for it to turn around, not just 4. I can't believe the litterly stated they would no longer do anthing until a new President is in office and that people accept that.
    
    Imagine how many more jobs would be available if the Jobs Act Bill passed the first time it was introduced. Would we pay about the same prices on our groceries rather than the anticipated 3-6% expected increases if The Farmers Aid bill and subsidaries would have been approved and in place already?
    
    It is sad to see highly intelligent, old school Republicans resigning because they are not as radical as the tea party republicans and are not accepted among them, nor are they willing to give up their independent voting choices to Grover Norquist.
    
    So for me, Republicans unwilling to work with anyone else; especially for the middle class and poor and sacraficing us when we could already be improving our economy at a much faster pace.
    
    The key person responsible for the down of the economy is Bush. The damage he did will take decades to fix; especially if right wing republicans become President. We will have no way out of it but will slip far deeper into an economic pitfall unless you are one of the very rich - then I am sure you will be doing even better than the Bush Era.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       davenmidtownposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I think blame lies everywhere party to party. I think the entire sentate should be removed from office and term limits placed on both house and senate. I think jail time should be mandatory for corrupt behavior.

       replyreport
19. 50

    bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years ago

    Neither, it is the democrats and republicans along with their third party backers.

    replyreport