[UGAalum94]

I'm going to say it: while there's a great deal of truth in the idea that the blame game doesn't help much, it still seems a little rich for people to make this appeal in regard to Obama after everything under the sun that Bush was blamed for.

I've said before and I'll say it again, it's way too early in Obama's Presidency to suggest that any of his policies as President are failures.

However, at some point, it's going to be as appropriate to regard him as being as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad, as it was to hold Bush responsible. I don't remember those of you posting this now ever making the same general argument when it was Bush being blamed.

ETA: personally, I think I'd be inclined to allow that some Presidents just have more than their fair share of crap happening during their terms than others. I think this is going to apply to Obama, but if the economy recovers during his Presidency, he'll largely receive the credit too.

On AGDee's point: I don't think you can just fail to take in taxes and quit providing all public services. That's just crazy talk. Is your ex-husband an anarchist?

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the people who seem to be able to afford to pay more taxes really can if they are also supposed to contribute to an economic recovery partially based on consumption. I think some of us also want some evidence that we're going to get something for the money. And no one can know that. A lot of the initial bailouts have just led to requests for more money. Others apparently involved enough red tape to hamper their effectiveness.