What an informative one hour press conference. No smirks, no jokes at
> the expense of the journalist or America. I think Obama gave us more
> information and data in his first press conference than Bush gave us
> in his entire 8 years. The adults are in charge again and I'm feeling
> a bit more secure.
You mean like this smirk?
I thought the Obama press conference was very good. My only criticism would be that he spent to much time blaming stuff on the previous administration. He seems to have forgotten that the Democrarts were in control of both houses of Congree for the previous two years and that they did nothing to correct Bush's errors (well except for some silly posturing). The Republicans never had a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate during Bush's administration and it seems to me they never tried very hard to impede some of the worst Bush ideas. And don't forget that many Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq war - the worst of Bush's ideas.
Playing the blame game may seen like fun now, but it is a bad idea.
Ed
Perhaps, but what I heard were a lot of 'ers' and 'ahs' and choppy phrasing, as well.
Most of what he said was, we will spend nearly a trillion more dollars of your money, particularly in the years before the next two election to buy your votes. We will worry about the inflation and weakened dollar in my next term LOL
If you want to see the Dims in Congress at work, that you put in charge. Do a search of the new illegal alien amnesty bill working its way through. All who apply will be granted amnesty the day after they apply, need not pay back taxes and criminals will receive free government lawyers. Unbelievable stuff.
No time to check details at the moment. Does the bill differ substantially from the amnesty idea promoted by Bush, which raised hackles on both sides of the aisle?
By this afternoon, you'll be three sheets to the wind and you won't care about other people's language.
Do we eally think Huffington is a credible source for anything? S*it, she didn't know what her husband's game was for a lot of years. That makes her qualified to pronounce any kind of observations with authority?
Ron in Idaho
Ed you're so wrong it's unbelievable:
Pubs never had a majority? Lie or stupidity?
Dems controlled last 2 years ??? Count the number of stimulus packages introduced by Dems and re- jected by Pubs and/or bush. Your lie or stupidity?
And on and ................
dennis in nca
Apparently it is worse, on first read
You mean the years in which were not attacked and the economy grew in every quarter, those years, or the next four years of promised massive government spending, a falling dollar and inflation?
At least the 'ers' and 'ahs' preceded facts and information, not some non sequitur quip.
Come on Mike, Obama took on the presidency at one of the worse times in our history and is determined to represent everyone. I really don't think republicans really wanted to take over after 8 years of Bush.
The Rebulicans never had a filibuster proof majority in the Seanate (and didn't even have a simple majority for half of Bush's time in office).
So are you saying that many of the Democrats who voted for the war were cowards who wanted to hang on to power more than they wanted to do what was best for the US? Should help relect these cowards (in NC at least, John Edwards knew better than to run again)?
Ed
The reason you believe that is you believe more government spending can stimulate the economy. History proves otherwise. LOL
Ed you're so wrong it's unbelievable:
Pubs never had a majority? Lie or stupidity?
Dems controlled last 2 years ??? Count the number of stimulus packages introduced by Dems and re- jected by Pubs and/or bush. Your lie or stupidity?
And on and ................
dennis in nca
It's the pictures that matter. It's not tough to find loads of Bush smirk photos. He does it at certain moments which don't need explaining. All one needs to do is match the smirk with what he's trying to say at the moment.
I said they never had a filibuster proof majority (requires 61 senators). This is true.
Count them for me (see
Gosh sweetheart, how could you stand it??? You poor thing!
What happened? Anything more than mangled one-liners overwhelming you now?
You should have recorded it and played it back in pieces so that you can keep up.
History proves that he's right and you're wrong, Wifebeater Mike, as any glance at the economy during the 1940s and 1960s, when government spending grew considerably, will show.
Like 1994-2000. More accurately, March, 1993 - Aug., 2001.
You were knocked down on that one last October, and the fact you're repeating it shows that you're just a liar (at least in this respect
-- we wouldn't want to detract from your reputation as a wife beater).
Third quarter 2007: real GDP (year 2000 dollars):
start: $11,625,746B end: $11,620,739B
You tried to weasel out of it by claiming I had shown semi-annual rather than quarterly numbers.
Besides the fact that GWB held few press conferences to begin with.
Cathy
Perhaps but you do not know your history or understand basic economic theory. FDRs spending in time of war was a necessity, but runaway inflation was the result. A Chevy Ford or Plymouth that sold for around $600 in 1941 went up to around $1,700 when the SAME cars were sold as 1946 models, after the war.
History shows FDRs spending before that, actually WORSENED the Depression after he took office and push the umimployment rate to 23%
Before and after WWII the US was a manufacturing nation that could grow it own economy, today we do not have that capability.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required