George W Bush
The Democrats still to this day blame Obama's economy on Bush.
Someone explain to me how this is Bush's fault. Walk me through step by step. Cause and effect - in steps.
Say Bush did this, this caused this, which caused this, which led to home foreclosures, and a collapse of the economy.
STEP BY STEP.
Someone explain to me how this is Bush's fault. Walk me through step by step. Cause and effect - in steps.
Say Bush did this, this caused this, which caused this, which led to home foreclosures, and a collapse of the economy.
STEP BY STEP.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
eric, this is a setup and a loaded question. you know damn well the answer but are waiting for some unsuspecting fool to fall into your trap haha.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
It still amazes me the selfisness in this country. "I don't have enough stuff......take away from sombody that's earned it and give it to me.". Go out and F'n earn it. Or it's not fair he has more than me, who cares that he's stayed up till 3am every night in college and worked his ass off with 2 jobs during the day while I was sitting around having smoke ins at 4:20, it's just not fair, give me some of his shit. I need the latest $200 nikes. Or I need the new iPhone 5. We live in the richest country in the world and people are still cry babies........stop crying and earn it. Yeah I know, people shouldn't have to earn it.
"It was a long process building."
And, our economy was long overdue for the current (slow) restructuring to be more competitive and employ higher skilled Americans (among other restructuring, such as building renewable energy and repairing our crumbling bridges.
And, our economy was long overdue for the current (slow) restructuring to be more competitive and employ higher skilled Americans (among other restructuring, such as building renewable energy and repairing our crumbling bridges.
ASKER
>>And, our economy was long overdue for the current (slow) restructuring
That's what this is called? My guess is the 23 million out of work or under employed would call it something else.
>>employ higher skilled Americans
Good wake up call for those idiots that major in Philosophy or Eastern European history. You need a skill.
>> building renewable energy
Solyndra
>>repairing our crumbling bridges.
In economics - that's called the Broken Window Fallacy.
>>I need the latest $200 nikes.
They can buy those $200 shoes because those of us that actually contribute to society pay for their other needs. I could imagine all the discretionary income I'd have if someone else paid for my basics.
>>eric, this is a setup and a loaded question.
Time for libs to put up or shut up
That's what this is called? My guess is the 23 million out of work or under employed would call it something else.
>>employ higher skilled Americans
Good wake up call for those idiots that major in Philosophy or Eastern European history. You need a skill.
>> building renewable energy
Solyndra
>>repairing our crumbling bridges.
In economics - that's called the Broken Window Fallacy.
>>I need the latest $200 nikes.
They can buy those $200 shoes because those of us that actually contribute to society pay for their other needs. I could imagine all the discretionary income I'd have if someone else paid for my basics.
>>eric, this is a setup and a loaded question.
Time for libs to put up or shut up
Criticism of the Broken Window Fallacy interpretations (from your link) "assume that the 'window' has positive value and that replacing it is not a good investment."
It is a good investment to replace, repair or upgrade bridges, tunnels, highways, etc. -- the infrastructure. Not to do so impairs national productivity, commerce and our global competition.
It is often much more costly and impacting to those critical areas if preventative maintenance is delayed or ignored.
It is a good investment to replace, repair or upgrade bridges, tunnels, highways, etc. -- the infrastructure. Not to do so impairs national productivity, commerce and our global competition.
It is often much more costly and impacting to those critical areas if preventative maintenance is delayed or ignored.
ASKER
>>It is a good investment
The whole idea of the trillion dollar "stimulus" was to get economic activity back. Problem was we (1) took that trillion out of the private market where it's used more efficiently and (2) we're using the money unwisely, such as repairing new sidewalks with newer sidewalks.
The money was so badly wasted that it barely created any economic activity. And, even if wisely used, the money would still be better off in the hands of consumers.
I'm sure I could find the link of how much we spent and how many jobs were created. Makes you sick to your stomach at what the cost per job ended up.
>>It is often much more costly and impacting to these critical areas if preventative maintenance is delayed or ignored.
It is the broken window fallacy. Money was allocated to areas that didn't need repairs. They wanted to "create" a job, any job, and hope someone takes that money and buy bread, and bread maker uses it to buy stuff, etc... However, all that resulted was waste.
The whole idea of the trillion dollar "stimulus" was to get economic activity back. Problem was we (1) took that trillion out of the private market where it's used more efficiently and (2) we're using the money unwisely, such as repairing new sidewalks with newer sidewalks.
The money was so badly wasted that it barely created any economic activity. And, even if wisely used, the money would still be better off in the hands of consumers.
I'm sure I could find the link of how much we spent and how many jobs were created. Makes you sick to your stomach at what the cost per job ended up.
>>It is often much more costly and impacting to these critical areas if preventative maintenance is delayed or ignored.
It is the broken window fallacy. Money was allocated to areas that didn't need repairs. They wanted to "create" a job, any job, and hope someone takes that money and buy bread, and bread maker uses it to buy stuff, etc... However, all that resulted was waste.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>unemployment is below where it was
That's because so many have given up looking for work. The labor participation rate is WAY down. If it were the same as when Obama took office, unemployment would be 11%.
>>the economy did turn around
News to new grads and the 23 million out of work
>>Except we didn't fall off the financial cliff
If Obama is elected, we will become Greece. Trillion dollar deficits can't be sustained. Benefits will eventually have to be cut and people will riot (see what happened in Wisconsin).
>>Not to mention a Republican blockade on any possible progress...
I want Republicans to block more wasted spending. Problem with your argument is Democraps controlled everything for 2 years. Had they controlled all for four years, Obama would be at 5% approval and Republicans would sweep every race - and then have a bigger fuckin' mess to clean up than the one Obama just made.
That's because so many have given up looking for work. The labor participation rate is WAY down. If it were the same as when Obama took office, unemployment would be 11%.
>>the economy did turn around
News to new grads and the 23 million out of work
>>Except we didn't fall off the financial cliff
If Obama is elected, we will become Greece. Trillion dollar deficits can't be sustained. Benefits will eventually have to be cut and people will riot (see what happened in Wisconsin).
>>Not to mention a Republican blockade on any possible progress...
I want Republicans to block more wasted spending. Problem with your argument is Democraps controlled everything for 2 years. Had they controlled all for four years, Obama would be at 5% approval and Republicans would sweep every race - and then have a bigger fuckin' mess to clean up than the one Obama just made.
I would be cool with instead of paying people to sit at home and watch Obama's next gig "The View", that we pay them to repair the infrastructure. But of course the libs would cry foul. People simply shouldn't have to work unless they want to and they are entitled to a standard of living after all this is the USA, and some people work hard enough not only to support themselves.....so if we take from the workers and give to the non workers.....everyone is happy. Plus according to Dems......it's the money given away in food stamps that drives the economy. "Let me be clear (pause), It's not suprising they get bitter, they cling to their work and their money, which is a problem I inherted, but I am totally comitted to screwing the working man out of his hard earned cash. I must apologize for my fellow 1%'ers. One thing I’m proud of is that very rarely will you hear me simplify the issues. But well.......it's Bush's fault. I want to pit Red America against Blue America. Or Rich verses poor, or black verses white....divide and conqure. Besides the real teachable moment comes when you realize you really didn't earn that money you just got paid.".
I want Republicans to block more wasted spending. Problem with your argument is Democraps controlled everything for 2 years. Had they controlled all for four years, Obama would be at 5% approval and Republicans would sweep every race - and then have a bigger fuckin' mess to clean up than the one Obama just made.
They've been blocking it for 4 years! Instead of the majority votes counting as designed, EVERYTHING is filibustered. And BTW, Obama inherited the big fuckin' mess and has been cleaning it up ever since.
Berger, you're so manifested in your delusion that all your problems are caused by people who don't want to work, but that just isn't the case. Millions didn't quit their jobs, they were laid off. People didn't want to stop paying their mortgages, they became unsustainable and the houses unsellable. You need to put down that Ayn Rand book which is a fictional work based on a flawed ideology and realize what kind of society America provides: it's much easier to live rich than it is to be poor by far, and being rich will get you many more opportunities (financial and otherwise) than being poor.
Here's a question. Did Obama sign the NDAA in 2012 which grants the US gov't the right to Indefinite detention without trial of US citzens?
ASKER
>>eople didn't want to stop paying their mortgages,
They couldn't afford the mortgage to begin with. Liberals forced banks to make bad loans. That's how we got in this mess.
>>They've been blocking it for 4 years!
They were fillibuster proof for a long time. Wasn't until Scott Brown that the filibuster was broken. But even that didn't stop Democrats from bending rules and pushing thru the death of health care.
>>it's much easier to live rich than it is to be poor by far
Go to a Haiti if you wanna see poor. The "poor" here have Obama phones, cable, microwaves, AC, and more food than they know what to do with.
And, excluding some disability, if you're poor in this country, you deserve it. It's your OWN fault. On the flip side, if you're rich in this country, then it's also your own fault...you choose to work long hours, invest your money, go to school, provide goods others want.
They couldn't afford the mortgage to begin with. Liberals forced banks to make bad loans. That's how we got in this mess.
>>They've been blocking it for 4 years!
They were fillibuster proof for a long time. Wasn't until Scott Brown that the filibuster was broken. But even that didn't stop Democrats from bending rules and pushing thru the death of health care.
>>it's much easier to live rich than it is to be poor by far
Go to a Haiti if you wanna see poor. The "poor" here have Obama phones, cable, microwaves, AC, and more food than they know what to do with.
And, excluding some disability, if you're poor in this country, you deserve it. It's your OWN fault. On the flip side, if you're rich in this country, then it's also your own fault...you choose to work long hours, invest your money, go to school, provide goods others want.
But Eric, what if I don't WANT to work but I WANT to be rich? How come you can't just take it away from somebody and give it to me. I would vote for you then. Damn it, I'm entitled to that new Macbook for $4000, besides how can I launch my new job as an offical internet surfer without it? Besudes i Have an collaje dagrey n Genneral Studeis that the state paid 4.
You guys are hopeless.
Good luck with your hateful and cynical delusions.
Good luck with your hateful and cynical delusions.
ASKER
>>But Eric, what if I don't WANT to work but I WANT to be rich?
Obama on video with the answer: VIDEO
>>Good luck with your hateful and cynical delusions.
thanks, man
Obama on video with the answer: VIDEO
>>Good luck with your hateful and cynical delusions.
thanks, man
Dude, I thought you liked comedy. Besides, I'm full of hope right now that we get the great divider out of office, I WAS hopeless 4 years ago.
Beetos, it's just we're beating a dead horse. Case in point. Romney's taxes......
You "It's not fair he pays less than somebody making a lot less than he does, Obama to save the day by raising his taxes."
Well Obama wants to raise them to 20%, still far below his secretary, see Romney only made money off capital gains, so even if you raised it to 20%, which is what Obama wants, he still pays less. Why not raise capital gains to 35%.......surly you know the answer to this. Plus this money has already taxed, plus it was Clinton who lowered them in the first place from 28 to 20, bush lowered them even futher to 15. Now personally I don't have a problem with them being raised to 20%. I don't think it will really affect anything, Obama is really using it as a tool to divide people. In the end Romney still pays less in taxes than Buffett's house keeper (percent not total). Me personally I don't think the rich bury their money in mason jars in the backyard, they want to reinvest it to make more, so we have two options, let them reinvest it and drive the economy or take it by force and give it to the gov't, which as I believe will completly waste it. So not only have you wasted the money by sending it to some country that hates us and wants to develop weapons to kill us, but you have lost the opportunity cost of the money being reinvested here in America to create jobs.
Beetos, it's just we're beating a dead horse. Case in point. Romney's taxes......
You "It's not fair he pays less than somebody making a lot less than he does, Obama to save the day by raising his taxes."
Well Obama wants to raise them to 20%, still far below his secretary, see Romney only made money off capital gains, so even if you raised it to 20%, which is what Obama wants, he still pays less. Why not raise capital gains to 35%.......surly you know the answer to this. Plus this money has already taxed, plus it was Clinton who lowered them in the first place from 28 to 20, bush lowered them even futher to 15. Now personally I don't have a problem with them being raised to 20%. I don't think it will really affect anything, Obama is really using it as a tool to divide people. In the end Romney still pays less in taxes than Buffett's house keeper (percent not total). Me personally I don't think the rich bury their money in mason jars in the backyard, they want to reinvest it to make more, so we have two options, let them reinvest it and drive the economy or take it by force and give it to the gov't, which as I believe will completly waste it. So not only have you wasted the money by sending it to some country that hates us and wants to develop weapons to kill us, but you have lost the opportunity cost of the money being reinvested here in America to create jobs.
"Problem with your argument is Democraps controlled everything for 2 years."
During that time, Democrats never had a Senate Supermajority to force a bill through.
Here is the two-year Supermajority myth debunked:
Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html
During that time, Democrats never had a Senate Supermajority to force a bill through.
Here is the two-year Supermajority myth debunked:
Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html
Then how did they get healtcare passed with zero Repub support?
Oh! Oh! Oh! I get to do it. Libs always make fun when you post a fact from Fox........you just posted something from the Huffington Post, thats even a step down from the View.
I guess the fact remains that either Obama either sucks as president or well he.....let's see......or sucks. Isn't that his job? Bush never had a Senate Supermajority, yet he was able to destroy the hopes and dreams of every single person born past present and future, Clinton never had a Senate Supermajority, and was able to get impeached, Carter never had a Senate Supermajority, and well he still managed to suck.
But let's not forget, Obama was able to sign a NDAA in 2012 which grants the US gov't the right to Indefinite detention without trial of US citzens!
Oh! Oh! Oh! I get to do it. Libs always make fun when you post a fact from Fox........you just posted something from the Huffington Post, thats even a step down from the View.
I guess the fact remains that either Obama either sucks as president or well he.....let's see......or sucks. Isn't that his job? Bush never had a Senate Supermajority, yet he was able to destroy the hopes and dreams of every single person born past present and future, Clinton never had a Senate Supermajority, and was able to get impeached, Carter never had a Senate Supermajority, and well he still managed to suck.
But let's not forget, Obama was able to sign a NDAA in 2012 which grants the US gov't the right to Indefinite detention without trial of US citzens!
Berger,
That's actually a lucid response, stating your position. But for all of your "it wouldn't make a difference anyway" sentiments, you can't deny the radical transfer of wealth in this country to those at the top. Why is that exactly? Well they can buy the influence they need to change laws to their benefit.
You hold the rich up as doing nothing but good for this country, when in reality they'll do what's best for them, which is the best we can expect.
Government is supposed to serve the people, not cater to the rich. If you steal a car - you go to jail. If you gamble with other peoples money and lose it all, but cover your own ass, you get a bonus? WTF?
That's actually a lucid response, stating your position. But for all of your "it wouldn't make a difference anyway" sentiments, you can't deny the radical transfer of wealth in this country to those at the top. Why is that exactly? Well they can buy the influence they need to change laws to their benefit.
You hold the rich up as doing nothing but good for this country, when in reality they'll do what's best for them, which is the best we can expect.
Government is supposed to serve the people, not cater to the rich. If you steal a car - you go to jail. If you gamble with other peoples money and lose it all, but cover your own ass, you get a bonus? WTF?
Beetos,
It's not my fault 4:20 comes early here. :)
Why is that exactly?
Do you really want my thoughts? Why did Clinton lower the capital gains from 28 to 20? Why is it the more we regulate the worse it becomes. Would you agree that we have more regulation now than we did in the 50's?
It's not my fault 4:20 comes early here. :)
Why is that exactly?
Do you really want my thoughts? Why did Clinton lower the capital gains from 28 to 20? Why is it the more we regulate the worse it becomes. Would you agree that we have more regulation now than we did in the 50's?
Why did Clinton lower the capital gains from 28 to 20?
Conservatives always say anything Clinton did that was good, was because Gingrich forced him to do so. Should the same standard not apply here? Clinton also revoked Glass-Steagal (sp?), which lead to the financial meltdown. He's no saint in this, as none of them are, but it's clearly not as one sided as pundits on either side would have you believe. Perhaps there is some happy medium regarding capitatl gains income - although I don't know why it's different than income you actually worked for. To spur investment I suppose, so again, isn't there some cap or something so that someone who makes 100% of their income from capital gains pays a real tax rate?
Also, guys like Romney have all these other vehicles available to them such as "carried interest".
Why is it the more we regulate the worse it becomes. Would you agree that we have more regulation now than we did in the 50's?
Regulations are bad is the conservative battle cry. Personally I like clean water and being able to breath. The deregulation of the financial industry didn't work out to well. Regulations prevent the exploitation of workers, though I know conservatives would prefer that.
Drill baby drill? What's wrong with conserve baby, conserve? You guys are supposed to be conservatives, right? New gov't regulations, and guess what? Suddenly America is starting to produce efficient vehicles that don't pollute as much and get far better mileage than their predecessors.
Are there onerous and senseless regulations? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that regulations are inherently bad.
There are also a lot more people, products, industries, and consequently less space and resources than there were in the 50's. Could you imagine if there was no progress in the auto industry since then for example? No seat belts, no air bags, no anti-lock breaks, <10mpg, no catalytic converters, etc. Did all those things come from the free market, or are there vehicle manufacturing regulations?
See Beetos, you just want to argue.
How did the federal speed limit work out? You truly believe that without regulation things wouldn't happen. Let's take seatbelts......were they invented when a law was passed forcing them in all cars? The law was passed in 68, show me a car that didn't have a seatbelt as standard, they became standard in corvette's in '58, much to the dismay of libs. Did air bags come from the free market? Let's look......first car produced with an airbag was in 1973. 1988 Chrysler made them standard in all cars even though this wasn't federal law until 1998, ford in '89. Ok...maybe better luck with anti lock brakes.....
But, and here's my but. With all this new safty, how much is a new car? Can people afford them or do they have to have a car that's several years old and these safty features may not work? It's a juggling act.
New gov't regulations, and guess what? Suddenly America is starting to produce efficient vehicles that don't pollute as much and get far better mileage than their predecessors.
You didn't live through the 70's, wanna borrow my 78' stang cobra to do a little cruising?
Why not raise minium wage to $25/hr? You make it sound like I'm against all regs, I'm not but you seem to deny there is a price to regs. Do I think it's good seatbelts are required in all new cars? Yes, but the free market had already gotten there. People do what's in their best interest and guess what, the mini-van my wife drives has all kinds of non-regualted airbags. Why pray-tell is that? Because my family is in it.
How did the federal speed limit work out? You truly believe that without regulation things wouldn't happen. Let's take seatbelts......were they invented when a law was passed forcing them in all cars? The law was passed in 68, show me a car that didn't have a seatbelt as standard, they became standard in corvette's in '58, much to the dismay of libs. Did air bags come from the free market? Let's look......first car produced with an airbag was in 1973. 1988 Chrysler made them standard in all cars even though this wasn't federal law until 1998, ford in '89. Ok...maybe better luck with anti lock brakes.....
But, and here's my but. With all this new safty, how much is a new car? Can people afford them or do they have to have a car that's several years old and these safty features may not work? It's a juggling act.
New gov't regulations, and guess what? Suddenly America is starting to produce efficient vehicles that don't pollute as much and get far better mileage than their predecessors.
You didn't live through the 70's, wanna borrow my 78' stang cobra to do a little cruising?
Why not raise minium wage to $25/hr? You make it sound like I'm against all regs, I'm not but you seem to deny there is a price to regs. Do I think it's good seatbelts are required in all new cars? Yes, but the free market had already gotten there. People do what's in their best interest and guess what, the mini-van my wife drives has all kinds of non-regualted airbags. Why pray-tell is that? Because my family is in it.
First car: New '66 Mustang. No nothin. Lift the hood and see your shoe laces.
ASKER
>>If you gamble with other peoples money and lose it all, but cover your own ass, you get a bonus? WTF?
Solyndra
Solyndra
Solyndra
Solyndra
Solyndra
Solyndra
ASKER
BTW - a free market can regulate itself. We do not need government involvement.
Next thing you know they'll ban soft drinks over 16 oz in NYC.
Next thing you know they'll ban soft drinks over 16 oz in NYC.
Really, seatbelts were standard equipment starting in 65. How many links do u want. Rear belts in 66. I even have a window sticker I can post stating belts were standard. ?? I don't know, maybe you were enjoying your freedom a little too much and just didn't use them.
Regarding the auto industry, how many safety features and standards are implemented in the future? For example, the gov't regulations on MPG are announced years before to give the industry time to implement them. That doesn't necessarily mean that the free market went that way on it's own.
I'm not sure how many car manufacturers did or didn't have seatbelts when the law went into effect, or how many implemented them because the law was going into effect, or how to find any of that out. Just because the car you owned had them at the time doesn't mean every car did.
Let's look at the Volt - a popular target of conservative ridicule. However, I'll bet that in a few years time electric cars will be quite commonplace based on the technology derived from the current projects we're funding.
Eric, I know you're thrilled that Solyndra went bankrupt, but the fact is it's only one of many companies in the solar industry that got loans from the gov't, and almost all of the rest are still in business. Solar has the potential to be a great technology, and will become cheaper and more efficient in the future. The fact that Obama wanted us to be leaders in that field and chose to try to push that should be a good quality in a President, and I'm sure if he had an (R) next to his name you'd feel the same way.
I'm not sure how many car manufacturers did or didn't have seatbelts when the law went into effect, or how many implemented them because the law was going into effect, or how to find any of that out. Just because the car you owned had them at the time doesn't mean every car did.
Let's look at the Volt - a popular target of conservative ridicule. However, I'll bet that in a few years time electric cars will be quite commonplace based on the technology derived from the current projects we're funding.
Eric, I know you're thrilled that Solyndra went bankrupt, but the fact is it's only one of many companies in the solar industry that got loans from the gov't, and almost all of the rest are still in business. Solar has the potential to be a great technology, and will become cheaper and more efficient in the future. The fact that Obama wanted us to be leaders in that field and chose to try to push that should be a good quality in a President, and I'm sure if he had an (R) next to his name you'd feel the same way.
See beetos, we are again at an impasse. U think we'll have electric cars in the future because the govt wasted a bunch of money on gm' volt, what was the piece of shit electic car they did in the 90's? Remember , it was a game changer then. No the bottom line is electric cars will take off when the buying public demands them. Just like seatbelts and airbags. Airbags first appeared in 73, Chrysler made them standard across the board in 88, a full 10 years before they had to? Why? In your world it's because the govt would make them do it a decade down the road, in my world, it would be to stay competitive with the likes of ford who followed suit in 89. They did it because the buying public demanded it. Same reason that the only mini van I would even consider buying for my family have side curtain and roll over bags. Like radios are standard in all cars, and 'gasp' there is no federal law requiring it. How can that be. I have a jeep tj, and there is no law requiring doors, again 'gasp' there is no federal law requiring doors.
ASKER
>>The fact that Obama wanted us to be leaders
It shouldn't be up to Obama. The free market picks winners and losers. The government, more times than not, picks losers.
>>Let's look at the Volt - a popular target of conservative ridicule.
GM LOSES $49,000 ON EACH CHEVY VOLT
>>However, I'll bet that in a few years time electric cars will be quite commonplace
only if the free market decides it's time. He can waste dollars, but Obama can't change that.
>>Eric, I know you're thrilled that Solyndra went bankrupt,
Minus the hard earned money wasted on that project, the good thing is it reminds us (1) the government can't pick winners and (2) that liberal economics always fails.
It shouldn't be up to Obama. The free market picks winners and losers. The government, more times than not, picks losers.
>>Let's look at the Volt - a popular target of conservative ridicule.
GM LOSES $49,000 ON EACH CHEVY VOLT
>>However, I'll bet that in a few years time electric cars will be quite commonplace
only if the free market decides it's time. He can waste dollars, but Obama can't change that.
>>Eric, I know you're thrilled that Solyndra went bankrupt,
Minus the hard earned money wasted on that project, the good thing is it reminds us (1) the government can't pick winners and (2) that liberal economics always fails.
Beetos,
Are there onerous and senseless regulations? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that regulations are inherently bad.
On that we can totally agree. I've never said regs are all bad, the federal speed limit was dumb, anyone want to argue that? Does any one want to argue that we should have no speed limits at all? Of course not.
Are there onerous and senseless regulations? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that regulations are inherently bad.
On that we can totally agree. I've never said regs are all bad, the federal speed limit was dumb, anyone want to argue that? Does any one want to argue that we should have no speed limits at all? Of course not.
ASKER
All these Obama regulations backfire and end up doing more damage.
Liberals are smart enough to grasp the concept of "unintended consequences"
Liberals are smart enough to grasp the concept of "unintended consequences"
ASKER
I would be happy to oblige if only someone would ask.
>> but the undeniable fact is that it happened on his watch
It was a long process building. Actually started with Clinton and Janet Reno, who threatened banks unless they made bad loans.