The question is, if Obama doesn't turn out to be the boogyman you predict and is successful in cleaning up the messes left by Bush, will you be happy or disappointed?
First of all, gdnp, I don't agree that everything you (or Obama) calls a mess is a mess ... or at least a mess created by republicans. For example, I think Bush has done an great job protecting America from terrorists and other foreign threats. I don't think the mortgage problem is due to Bush but rather due primarily to democrats and their policies. I much prefer the approach to illegal immigration that republicans have to the one that Obama and democrats promote. And if we have an energy crisis, then that too is a problem created as much by democrats as anyone else and one which Obama is far less likely to solve than Bush or McCain.
But if Obama can manage to turn the economy around so we get high growth and low employment while not making government more of leach than it already is, I'll be pleased. If he can do as well as Bush did as far as preventing terrorist attacks on the US, in spreading democracy around the world, in securing our oil supplies, then I'll have to admit he was a good president in those areas. Especially if he manages to do all the above without breaking all the laws that the Clinton administration broke.
But what are you going to do if during the next four years we suffer a major terrorist attack as a result of trying to deal with terrorists like they did during the Clinton era ... i.e., by sending in the lawyers? What are you going to do if all the freebies that Obama hands out increase unemployment (as has happened in many socialist countries around the world)? What are you going to do if by putting so many Clintonistas back into high positions we see the disregard for law and privacy that we saw during the Clinton years? What will you do if the educational policies of Ayers when promoted by an Obama administration turn out just as ineffective as they were during CAC?
How far does your hatred of Bush go?
Quote:
Because you don't create growth through welfare, socialism and communism. What you get is an illusion that in the end collapses.
Good. Since Obama is not advocating any of those solutions.
That's EXACTLY what he's promoting. His so-called tax cuts are nothing more than wealth redistribution and welfare. He's promising free health care to tens of millions. Many of those who voted for him even think he's going to give them free gas and houses. Now if he doesn't turn out to be a socialist, I'll be very surprised and the first to admit I was wrong in my fears. But if he does turn out to be a socialist and tries to make good on all the promises he made, will you admit you were wrong?
You also don't create wealth through allowing the free market to create opaque financial instruments that no one understands and trade them in a giant pyramid scheme that finally collapses like a house of cards.
The problem with what you say, gdnp, is that the pyramid you allude to was indeed created and managed primarily by democrats. For example, Fannie May and Freddie Mac were democrat run institutions. The LIE that Obama told during the campaign was that Bush and McCain never made any attempt to fix the mortage problem or monitor the lenders. They did. They didn't succeed because democrats in Congress (like Franks) were busy defending the illegal and unwise activities of those institutions. And Obama claimed during the campaign that he did try the fix the mortgage problem. That was outright lie. In fact, he was one of the largest recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.
Hillary is a politician. No more or less honest than most, IMHO.
Well you are entitled to your opinion. But I don't see you actually trying to challenge any of the facts about Chinagate, Filegate or FosterGate that I noted in the OP.
