Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Still Bush's Fault?

It's been 4.5 years since Obama took office. He inherited a poor economy that he helped to create while in the Senate, and was happy to blame Bush for it. While campaigning for his re-election, he even specifically mentioned that Romney would be "okay" with Detroit going bankrupt, but that he would not let it. As most people know, Detroit recently declared bankruptcy under Obama's presidency.

So the question is, is it still Bush's fault? Obama made many promises prior to his first term, but then found out how bad the economy really was, supposedly, and could not deliver on those promises. For this second term, after being made fully aware of the economy, he said he would not allow Detroit to go bankrupt. Yet it has. Did Bush cause this? Did Obama's promise fail to be delivered because Bush was in office 5 years ago? If Bush had so much control over the economy, why can't Obama be considered responsible for our economy after he's been in office for a few years?

There's also things like Obamacare, which will definitely increase costs for families. There's the hatred for responsible budgeting, and love for increasing spending, regardless of its impact to Americans, both individually and as a nation. Our current administration has an indisputable history of poor economics, so when do we start looking at the economy with the belief that this is now Obama's work?

Report this ad