Quote Originally Posted by tony
I just thought about this, the Executive Branch.. Commander in Chief is not responsible for the state of the United States Economy? The man who ultimately has Veto power over anything Congress approves and sign into law ANY bill isn't responsible?

lol You've got to be kidding me, I'm sure if the economy was exploding you would say we need to thank Bush but now its not his fault? Well why have a president then? I guess we can just get things done on our own.

Bad Economic policy is wasting $400 Billion on a war that shows no return on investment while your people are losing jobs to other countries, losing their homes and the value of your currency is plummeting at an alarming rate. Bad economic policy is not investing in infrastructure for energy independence while your citizens are held captive by the Oil industry because there is no competition and essentially.. a monopoly. Good economic policy would not leave millions of citizens without proper healthcare and allow an affordable solution for much needed medications.

Bush himself doctored "No Child Left Behind" and now almost half of our teenagers are not graduating from high school. Please explain how George Bush, the one man with the most control over domestic policy over the last 8 years bears not an ounce of burden over the state of the U.S?
just as quick as the president can veto something the congress can still overturn his veto. he alone can not make the decision to go to war. it has to be voted upon and approved. he can do a military campaign but only so long until it has to be voted on and the troops brought home. also healthcare shouldnt be the responsibility of the government it should be up to the individual and no child left behind act is a public law that was still voted upon and accepted by congress. does bush deserve some of the blame? sure, but all of it? no. he is in the public eye all the time and as such is the easiest target. and no he doesnt have the most control the congress has the most control