Log In | Register
Is the Oval Office Occupant responsible for whether you have enough money to pay your bills and achieve your aspirations? That’s certainly what some believe to be true and others use as fuel for a firestorm of anger that they hope will throw out the guy in power now.
But for the benefit of those who are using that anger as an excuse to avoid changing their life, I think they should accept that the answer is “No!”
This came to mind after reading about an Ashby, Mass. resident, Holly Kulik, in a February 11th New York Times article. In that article, Kiluk made it clear that she is not a happy camper. And she pinned the blame on both the current President and the Republican candidates who are trying to win that office in November.
To be fair to Kulik, her point of view is somewhat original. Usually, the effort to blame a bad economy on the President is used by the media supporting the challenger as a way to whip up the general public into a “throw-the-bum-out” frenzy.
A recent case in point is a report in the New York Times that high gas prices will be the latest pin-the-blame-on-the-president talking point for Republicans. According to the Times, “In a closed-door meeting last week, Speaker John A. Boehner instructed fellow Republicans to embrace the gas-pump anger they find among their constituents when they return to their districts for the Presidents’ Day recess.”
America: Stop Blaming President For Your Lot in Life - Forbes
Article Source: Forbes
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (4)
in the first quarter of 2009, the overall U.S. gross domestic product tumbled 6.1%. In the fourth quarter of 2011, GDP rose 2.8%. And in January 2009, the U.S. economy lost598,000 jobs; whereas three years later it gained 243,000.
We all get caught in the tide whether we are up or down economically. For certain, it is our responsibility as to how many opportunities we take to improve our lives. Good seed easy.
- 2 votes
#1 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:55 PM ESTLet's not forget that laws in this country are lobbyed and debated, and approved or deleted by federal legislations, and state legislations...not by the POTUS. We need to stick to facts, rather than the "throw the bum out" mentality. The POTUS had nothing to do with legislation in Georgia to legally "sodomize a woman with a vaginal probe, against her will" to qualify for an abortion, or attack your pensions.
- 1 vote
#2 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:03 PM ESTThe simple reality is that the economy is in much better shape now than it was three years ago when Obama took office. For example, in the first quarter of 2009, the overall U.S. gross domestic product tumbled 6.1%. In the fourth quarter of 2011, GDP rose 2.8%. And in January 2009, the U.S. economy lost 598,000 jobs; whereas three years later it gained 243,000.
It seems as if Obama hasn't been just twiddling his thumbs as some would have us believe.
- 2 votes
#3 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:10 PM ESTThe cool winds of reason blow across the collective fevered brow. Can we get a little common sense going here? People who don't prepare themselves to be marketable commodities in the job market may have a hard time getting a job. Then they have to depend on public aid. People who stay on public aid and make no attempt to better their lives have handed control of their life over to the people who determine how much aid they will get.
People who make spending a priority instead of saving for future emergencies or their retirements will reap some misery, inconvenience and disappointment from that choice. And this was true when Wilson, Hoover, Nixon, Carter...(name your President) was in office.
Were earlier times really more prosperous ones? Or were people handling their money more prudently, and this gives the appearance of prosperity?
#4 - Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:43 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
