Currently, I wish that I could do something major about this, but I can’t. For now, I will have to put my faith in the system and hope that it gets somewhere in the next 4 years.

Once again Dino couldn’t find a clue, in the middle of a clue field, at the height of clue hunting season, if he smeared his body with musk and did the clue-mating dance.

Your “assertions” are superstitious nonsense, little dino, and intended to distract from Obama’s insane debt creation by recycling your same old lies about what Dem social engineering and market-rigging did to our economy for thirty years.

Dino,

You are right that Bush was not so good for the economy. But Bush wasn’t conservative. Remember, he was a “compassionate” conservative. That is, he believed that you could vastly expand the state, if only you cut taxes by 4 percentage points. Medicare prescription drug, Dept. of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, drastically increasing domestic spending, while at the same time engaging in two wars. Oh, and he signed off on a huge expansion of regulations for virtually all mid-to-large sized corporations. Not to mention his anti-trust department was amongst the worst at destroying private sector efficiencies (no Microsoft cases that made big headlines like Clinton, but many, many smaller stupidities).

And none of this includes any talk about Greenspan and Bernanke. It should be obvious that these republican appointees are nothing short of socialist czars over the most important good in an advanced economy — i.e., money. Moreover, while Greenspan started it, Bernanke has taken the interventionist philosophy of picking winners and losers (bailouts, guarantees, etc. for specific firms) to a whole new level.

But you fail — absolutely fail — when you don’t blame democrats for any of this. All they do is support going even further than all of these things that republicans like Bush did. Of course, you think Bush was some sort of free market philosopher. He wasn’t. He was just another dopey politician.

Sorry to go off topic, I so rarely do, please forgive me.

You just don’t get it, Rob. No administration is “good for the economy”; there are just some who are less harmful to it.

In other words, some administrations are not so good for the economy.

Perhaps you can refute my assertions?

Doubt it, stem.

I never try to teach a pig to sing, Dino. As you have proven on multiple occasions, it wastes my time and it annoys the pig.

Please give any and all economic arguments, using facts, logic and causal reasoning, that support your claim.

Robert, books have been written about the subject. Just to be clear, I didn’t even touch on the “2008 Stimulus” bill and Henry Paulson’s crazy endeavors into fascism. I was merely pointing to the non-conservative aspects that “everyone should know” about the Bush presidency in general.

Yes, we know. When conservatives fail (as they always do) they weren’t real conservatives. That dodge has been around forever.

Except I thought Bush was a failure long before he was re-elected. And by 2005 it was more than obvious that he was going to have Greenspan’s mess blow up on him in the form of a deflating real estate bubble.

Face it. He wasn’t conservative. You could argue that the republican congress from 1994-2000 (when they were opposing a democrat president) was relatively conservative, but the republicans in congress failed to be conservatives when “their guy” got in the White House and decided to be more “compassionate” (and reckless).