Democrats controlled congress since 07 yet Bush gets all the Blame?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obama has his failures and its blamed on the Tea Party whom holds only partial power.

Funny how that works for the left.

 

[driveby]

Additionally, not proposing a budget for three years is a good way to avoid being blamed for anything.........

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If someone wanted to be truly partisan they could easily place the blame for our collapse 100% in the hands of the democratic congress because it happened 100% during their rein.

But you never hear that. Know why? Simple,


The president wasn't a democrat under a republican held congress.

You can bet your ass if that was the case congress would have gotten the blame.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

veto pen.....

Your right, NEITHER of them used it when they should have.

 

[kiwiman127]

Recessions require two successive fiscal quarters of a downward GDP to be declared a recession. The last day of the Bush/GOP fiscal budget was September 30th, 2007, the official recession started in December 2007, not even two month later. In other words, the recession was already over 4 months into the making when the last GOP budget was still in effect.
The Housing Bubble started in late 2006.
Let's be honest here, the Housing Bubble was a main factor for the recession and both parties were responsible for that, along with the Fed and banks.
To state in was one party that caused the recession is ludicrous.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Recessions require two successive fiscal quarters of a downward GDP to be declared a recession. The last day of the Bush/GOP fiscal budget was September 30th, 2007, the official recession started in December 2007, not even two month later. In other words, the recession was already over 4 months into the making when the last GOP budget was still in effect.
The Housing Bubble started in late 2006.
Let's be honest here, the Housing Bubble was a main factor for the recession and both parties were responsible for that, along with he Fed and banks.
To state in was one party that caused the recession is ludicrous.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the blame game.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

veto pen.....

Your right, NEITHER of them used it when they should have.

Obama has a different problem than Bush and you know this. Obama or the left blaming the House is just politics, and really shouldnt be over thought. Just like the house blaming Reid and congress.

But the main difference is Bush and his congress DID things. They passed bills, where this one has done nothing. Being the party of no, doesnt help. Take the debt crisis, you dont go to the last minute and hold up the world economy because you are butt hurt you lost in 08.

You know why we werent not downgraded when the tab was being run up under Bush? They passed shit about the budget without much fighting. Yeah there was some but they still did it.

Your second paragraph would make a great anti Obama ad. Too funny, you proved my point.

Even though Bush was effective with his congress as compared to Obama, Bush still gets flack while Obama gets a pass. Obama just can't lead. If he has any desire to be perceived as an effective leader he is going to have to move to the center like Clinton. I just don't think Obama cares. He wants what he wants and will only give in once he thinks his crying will be embraced by the American people.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Recessions require two successive fiscal quarters of a downward GDP to be declared a recession. The last day of the Bush/GOP fiscal budget was September 30th, 2007, the official recession started in December 2007, not even two month later. In other words, the recession was already over 4 months into the making when the last GOP budget was still in effect.
The Housing Bubble started in late 2006.
Let's be honest here, the Housing Bubble was a main factor for the recession and both parties were responsible for that, along with he Fed and banks.
To state in was one party that caused the recession is ludicrous.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the blame game.

water is wet....

Yet Obama still hasn't walked on it.

 

[asaratis]

Recessions require two successive fiscal quarters of a downward GDP to be declared a recession. The last day of the Bush/GOP fiscal budget was September 30th, 2007, the official recession started in December 2007, not even two month later. In other words, the recession was already over 4 months into the making when the last GOP budget was still in effect.
The Housing Bubble started in late 2006.
Let's be honest here, the Housing Bubble was a main factor for the recession and both parties were responsible for that, along with he Fed and banks.
To state in was one party that caused the recession is ludicrous.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the blame game.

There is hypocrisy from both sides. However, that should not be used to whitewash the predominantly Democrat contribution (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) to the forcing of banks to make questionable home loans and the predominantly Democrat contribution (Franklin Raines, Barney Frank et al) to its continuance after being pointed out as a potential catastrophe and the graft and corruption that made both of them rich.

The Democrats do not care if the economy is ruined by social giveaways...as long as they can be in control of the giveaways....and get votes in exchange

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

 

[Dragon]

Bush doesn't get all the blame in my book. In fact, he doesn't even get the main blame. Ronald Reagan does.

 

[Rocko]

This notion that democrats haven't had their shot is downright laughable. They had it, and they blew it, FACT.

 

[Dragon]

This notion that democrats haven't had their shot is downright laughable. They had it, and they blew it, FACT.

True, but not in the sense you mean.

 

[Rocko]

This notion that democrats haven't had their shot is downright laughable. They had it, and they blew it, FACT.

True, but not in the sense you mean.

I wasn't making a partisan comment, just a factual one, but if you'd be so kind to explain?

 

[Rocko]

Bush doesn't get all the blame in my book. In fact, he doesn't even get the main blame. Ronald Reagan does.

 

[Dragon]

I wasn't making a partisan comment, just a factual one, but if you'd be so kind to explain?

It's true that Democrats had a chance and blew it, but someone like yourself who points this out is likely thinking of the current Democratic Party as a left bookend on viable political positions. The reality is that the Dems blew it by under-reaching, by governing too far to the right. Given that they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a while and overwhelming House majorities, there's no way to reasonably blame this on Republican opposition. If the Democrats had been willing to govern as their constituents demanded, Republican opposition could have been steamrolled.

The Democrats over the last few years have revealed themselves as being in the pockets of corporate America, rather like the Republicans. It's a disease that affects our entire political structure and is not something confined to one party, therefore it cannot be remedied by electing one party over another.

Of course, that also works in the other direction, unless what you're after is a corporate aristocracy, in which case it doesn't matter.

Regarding Reagan, yes, I was serious. The problems we have now in the economy are a long-range result of the shift away from the policies of the post World War II decades that aimed at narrower income gaps and high wages. Those policies gave us the strongest economy in our nation's history. It was Reagan who turned away from them and abandoned them. His four successors have not reversed that change. The differences between Clinton's or Obama's policies and those of the Bushes are trivial compared to the changes brought in by Reagan to what went before him.

Bush can be blamed for the explosion of the deficit under his governance, since that clearly sprang from his tax cuts and his expanded federal spending on wars and the prescription drug Medicare benefit. Cut taxes while increasing spending, naturally you increase the deficit. But he can't be blamed for the collapse of the economy, because that became inevitable sooner or later as a result of the Reagan policies that began increasing concentration of wealth and eventually left the economy vulnerable to the first financial virus that came along. Bush can be blamed only to the extent that he did not correct that mistake -- but then, neither did his father, nor Clinton, nor (so far) Obama.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I wasn't making a partisan comment, just a factual one, but if you'd be so kind to explain?

It's true that Democrats had a chance and blew it, but someone like yourself who points this out is likely thinking of the current Democratic Party as a left bookend on viable political positions. The reality is that the Dems blew it by under-reaching, by governing too far to the right. Given that they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a while and overwhelming House majorities, there's no way to reasonably blame this on Republican opposition. If the Democrats had been willing to govern as their constituents demanded, Republican opposition could have been steamrolled.

The Democrats over the last few years have revealed themselves as being in the pockets of corporate America, rather like the Republicans. It's a disease that affects our entire political structure and is not something confined to one party, therefore it cannot be remedied by electing one party over another.

Of course, that also works in the other direction, unless what you're after is a corporate aristocracy, in which case it doesn't matter.

Regarding Reagan, yes, I was serious. The problems we have now in the economy are a long-range result of the shift away from the policies of the post World War II decades that aimed at narrower income gaps and high wages. Those policies gave us the strongest economy in our nation's history. It was Reagan who turned away from them and abandoned them. His four successors have not reversed that change. The differences between Clinton's or Obama's policies and those of the Bushes are trivial compared to the changes brought in by Reagan to what went before him.

Bush can be blamed for the explosion of the deficit under his governance, since that clearly sprang from his tax cuts and his expanded federal spending on wars and the prescription drug Medicare benefit. Cut taxes while increasing spending, naturally you increase the deficit. But he can't be blamed for the collapse of the economy, because that became inevitable sooner or later as a result of the Reagan policies that began increasing concentration of wealth and eventually left the economy vulnerable to the first financial virus that came along. Bush can be blamed only to the extent that he did not correct that mistake -- but then, neither did his father, nor Clinton, nor (so far) Obama.

So democrats got their asses handed to them for being too much like the gop and then the solution was to replace them with real gop candidates?

LMFAO

THAT HAS TO BE THE FUNNIEST POST OF THE MONTH.

 

[kiwiman127]

Recessions require two successive fiscal quarters of a downward GDP to be declared a recession. The last day of the Bush/GOP fiscal budget was September 30th, 2007, the official recession started in December 2007, not even two month later. In other words, the recession was already over 4 months into the making when the last GOP budget was still in effect.
The Housing Bubble started in late 2006.
Let's be honest here, the Housing Bubble was a main factor for the recession and both parties were responsible for that, along with he Fed and banks.
To state in was one party that caused the recession is ludicrous.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the blame game.

There is hypocrisy from both sides. However, that should not be used to whitewash the predominantly Democrat contribution (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) to the forcing of banks to make questionable home loans and the predominantly Democrat contribution (Franklin Raines, Barney Frank et al) to its continuance after being pointed out as a potential catastrophe and the graft and corruption that made both of them rich.

The Democrats do not care if the economy is ruined by social giveaways...as long as they can be in control of the giveaways....and get votes in exchange

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

We all know that Frank and Dodd had their part and shame on them! But their actions took place when the GOP had complete control of Washington, so your point is mute.
And I take it you were referring to The Community Reinvestment Act when you are taking on Clinton and Carter.

The Community Reinvestment Act , passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek

So yes, Clinton and Carter are responsible but not to the extent you are implying as CRA applied to just 20% of those loans.

Look folks, the Fed, Wall Street and the banks were the major culprits. There are no "ands or buts about this". The Fed reduced interest rates to next to nothing. The banks offered adjustable rate loans and practiced predatory lending and Wall Street bundled Mortgage Backed Securities and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

I sure am sick of all the ideological finger pointing when in fact a majority of the blame points to non-political entities.

 

[Greenbeard]

So democrats got their asses handed to them for being too much like the gop and then the solution was to replace them with real gop candidates?

I don't know the extent to which I agree with Dragon's analysis but here you're buying into the myth of the fickle voter. Elections are less about winning hearts and minds and swaying new converts to your position than they are about getting out the vote. Elections are won by the side that gets their voters to the polls. The composition of the electorate is what matters and the electorate that gave the Democrats power in 2006 and 2008 is not necessarily the one that gave it to the Republicans in 2008.

In 2010, conservative Republican voters were energized and turned out in droves, while Democratic voters were complacent or disillusioned and stayed home. You can argue about why that was--Dragon's explanation is one possibility.

Do you honestly thing the approval ratings of newly elected Republican governors nose dived months (or even weeks) into their terms and numerous pieces of legislation from newly-Republican legislatures were overturned at the polls earlier this month because folks simply changed their minds over the course of this year? Certainly not, those Republicans motivated those who stayed home last year to turn out this year.

 

[paulitician]

This stuff is mostly MSM-driven. And the MSM is overwhelmingly in the Democratic Party's pocket. This is just fact. Nothing has gone right in this country since the Democrats took control of the Congress back in 2007. And i mean nothing. Things were sailing along pretty nicely until they took Congress back. But the MSM can't say that because it conflicts with their agenda. Their agenda is to get Democrats elected so don't expect any truth from them. It is what it is.

 

[Greenbeard]

Things were sailing along pretty nicely until they took Congress back.

What "things" would those be?