It disappoints me that people refer to silentmovie as stupid instead of combating his remarks. Others may argue that it's not worth their time, and you may be right. But, I want to address the issues brought forth.
Unemployment was 7.5% when Bush left office and was climbing. The current unemployment rate is 10.2%, and it may climb. But I have to ask: How is this Barack Obama's fault? Even after the stock market crashed in 1929 and unemployment hit 20%, the jobs still hadn't recovered by 1937 (12%) even if the market had. Would you argue that the 20% unemployment was the fault of FDR? Did the numbers begin declining as soon as he entered office or did unemployment rise before he even took his oath?
The stimulus has not cost trillions of dollars. It was 0.75 trillion which is still a lot, but Bush also signed the TARP legislation into law costing taxpayers $700 billion. If you are using the stimulus as your basis for President Obama being a socialist, then you have to acknowledge that former President Bush made a similar "socialist" decision with TARP. It should also be noted that the economic collapse began in October 2008 during President Bush's term. How is this President Obama's fault?
The government is not taking over health care. They are reforming it. There is a difference. A public option has been proposed that would cover two-thirds of the uninsured (hopefully) at a cost to those who make over $250,000 a year. Now, here, you may have an argument for a socialist type tax system, but it has existed for many years. President Bush didn't institute a flat tax even though the Republicans could have been able to nor was it discussed as an option.
As for 9/11 (the greatest tragedy to occur on American soil) leading to the loss of 3000 American lives occurred during the presidency of George W. Bush. Now, could he or someone else have stopped it? It's debatable, but the actions of one man killing 13 troops are no where near the magnitude of 19 men killing 3000. Still, it is a tragedy which maybe could have been avoided, but it is difficult to know. And, if Hasan is a terrorist, it has not been confirmed yet.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think we should have been involved in these conflicts in the first place. With the lives of 5000 American soldiers (not to mention the causalities, both mental and physical) and the untold loss of civilian lives in these countries, these wars have left us in a precarious situation. There has been no evidence for Al Qaeda in Iraq, but Afghanistan supposedly harbored bin Laden. However, one fact is clear. These invasions were botched at the beginning with inadequate troop levels in both nations leading to disorder and poor living conditions. The troop surge may have helped, but I personally give the credit to General Petraeus who focused on civilian protection and trust to reduce conflict. I can't say that a surge in Afghanistan will work or not work, but I don't consider the lives of men and women to be an easy quick decision. You may, but I don't.
Finally, if all of these taxes were to be cut, where would you cut? Before you say education or welfare, remember that these two combined don't even constitute 10% of the yearly federal budget (education is 1.75% or slightly less, welfare is a little more difficult to determine, but we'll call it 5% as a safe estimate). Now, also remember that three sources of spending account for 2/3 of our federal spending (Defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security). Veterans' Affairs receives about $45 billion dollars as well ($10 billion less than education). Iraq and Afghanistan account for $142 billion a year (about 5% of the budget and is not included in defense).
Finally, I want to address this issue of supporting the troops, but I don't know what this means to you. So, I was hoping you could tell me what supporting the troops means to you.
reply
share