Obama Still Blaming Bush for our Economic Problems.

[NeoTemplar]

Why can't we all just admit that both Bush "and" Obama fucked up and congress has their asses on purse strings?

 

[Synthaholic]

Why can't we all just admit that both Bush "and" Obama fucked up and congress has their asses on purse strings?

Because no one has showed where/how Obama has fucked up.

 

[NeoTemplar]

Why can't we all just admit that both Bush "and" Obama fucked up and congress has their asses on purse strings?

Because no one has showed where/how Obama has fucked up.

Are you insane?

 

[usmcstinger]

I'd like to see you do a better job.

Well the thing is..Obama's solutions have been working.

A fine example would be Japan, which experienced a recession that would be deemed very mild when compared to what happened in the US.

They tried the solution that Republicans are touting. That was like 20 years ago.

And they still haven't climbed out of it.

that was meant for stinger.

Germany got through that problem and still has the best economy in Europe.

Keynesian economics is a theory that has failed to help our economy
and helped to increase our National Debt.

The Frogs, Spain and Italy will not have the money to implement the seriously flawed Keynesian Economics.

 

[rightwinger]

Well the thing is..Obama's solutions have been working.

A fine example would be Japan, which experienced a recession that would be deemed very mild when compared to what happened in the US.

They tried the solution that Republicans are touting. That was like 20 years ago.

And they still haven't climbed out of it.

that was meant for stinger.

Germany got through that problem and still has the best economy in Europe.

Keynesian economics is a theory that has failed to help our economy
and helped to increase our National Debt.

The Frogs, Spain and Italy will not have the money to implement the seriously flawed Keynesian Economics.

What is the matter with them?

Don't they realize that Republican Trickle Down Economics is the only path towards prosperity?

 

[LilOlLady]

You obviously have a very short and selective memory. What took Bush 8 years to break will take more than 4 years to fix. What Bush put in motion he did not take with him when he left office. The effects of the two wars, tax cuts for the rich will be felt for decades. For three years he tried to work with the Right but their priority was to make sure Obama failed, even if it meant disaster for the country.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009 When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama.

By passing congress has been the only way he could get anything done. Tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class does not create jobs and does nothing for the debt. We are paying less taxes under Obama than under the last three or four administrations. Tax breaks for the rich is dependence of Government. The middle class made the rich wealthy and asking them to give back is not asking too much.
The present welfare and food stamp class was created by 8 years of Bush.

Obviously you cannot see the forest for the trees. Obama’s positives far outweigh the negatives that the Right dwell on.

 

[expat_panama]

...Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009 When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion...

Your post is spot on with regards to the facts that high unemployment is a function of excessive debt and the understanding that debt is what defines America's political factions. The thing to remember is that Bush and Obama haven't controlled taxing and spending, that's what Congress does (read more at The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net). Just the same, your links of party --> debt --> unemployment really show up with congressional party control:

Shifts in congreassional power over to Democrats is always followed by similar shifts in debt growth, and--

--those shifts result in higher unemployment.

 

[Oldstyle]

You obviously have a very short and selective memory. What took Bush 8 years to break will take more than 4 years to fix. What Bush put in motion he did not take with him when he left office. The effects of the two wars, tax cuts for the rich will be felt for decades. For three years he tried to work with the Right but their priority was to make sure Obama failed, even if it meant disaster for the country.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009 When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama.

By passing congress has been the only way he could get anything done. Tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class does not create jobs and does nothing for the debt. We are paying less taxes under Obama than under the last three or four administrations. Tax breaks for the rich is dependence of Government. The middle class made the rich wealthy and asking them to give back is not asking too much.
The present welfare and food stamp class was created by 8 years of Bush.

Obviously you cannot see the forest for the trees. Obama’s positives far outweigh the negatives that the Right dwell on.

Sorry to inject a small dose of "reality" into your fantasy world, Lil...but Barack Obama went into office with Super Majorities in the House and the Senate. He didn't have to "by pass" Congress if his policies hadn't been so gawd awful that he couldn't even convince Democrats to vote for them.

Just curious...if the Bush tax cuts don't help to create jobs then why didn't Barry get rid of them way back in 2009 when there was no way in God's green earth that the Republicans could have stopped him? The answer to THAT is quite simple really...Obama didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT TO DO SO WOULD COST JOBS!!!

We are paying less taxes under Obama? Oh, you're spot on there, Lil...but the REASON that we're paying less taxes isn't because Obama has lowered the tax rate...oh, no...the REASON that we're paying less taxes is that we're making way less money under the Obama Economy than we were under Bush. You pay tax on INCOME...when you've got millions of people unemployed for record numbers of months and millions more underemployed and making half of what they used to make...then those people are going to pay less in taxes. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!!!!

How is it that all the people on food stamps and welfare is STILL Bush's fault? Did we not give Barry over a trillion dollars to use for stimulus? Has the Fed not been printing money as fast as the presses can press? Did Barry and his people not promise to us that if we DID give him his stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%? It went to 10 and STILL hasn't gone under 8%!!!

 

[Rshermr]

Well the thing is..Obama's solutions have been working.

A fine example would be Japan, which experienced a recession that would be deemed very mild when compared to what happened in the US.

They tried the solution that Republicans are touting. That was like 20 years ago.

And they still haven't climbed out of it.

that was meant for stinger.

Germany got through that problem and still has the best economy in Europe.

Keynesian economics is a theory that has failed to help our economy
and helped to increase our National Debt.

The Frogs, Spain and Italy will not have the money to implement the seriously flawed Keynesian Economics.

And where, dare say, did you see Keynsian economics failing in this past recession?? What would YOU suggest we do about our current economic problem, ie, unemployment?

 

[Rshermr]

You obviously have a very short and selective memory. What took Bush 8 years to break will take more than 4 years to fix. What Bush put in motion he did not take with him when he left office. The effects of the two wars, tax cuts for the rich will be felt for decades. For three years he tried to work with the Right but their priority was to make sure Obama failed, even if it meant disaster for the country.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009 When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama.

By passing congress has been the only way he could get anything done. Tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class does not create jobs and does nothing for the debt. We are paying less taxes under Obama than under the last three or four administrations. Tax breaks for the rich is dependence of Government. The middle class made the rich wealthy and asking them to give back is not asking too much.
The present welfare and food stamp class was created by 8 years of Bush.

Obviously you cannot see the forest for the trees. Obama’s positives far outweigh the negatives that the Right dwell on.

Sorry to inject a small dose of "reality" into your fantasy world, Lil...but Barack Obama went into office with Super Majorities in the House and the Senate. He didn't have to "by pass" Congress if his policies hadn't been so gawd awful that he couldn't even convince Democrats to vote for them.

Just curious...if the Bush tax cuts don't help to create jobs then why didn't Barry get rid of them way back in 2009 when there was no way in God's green earth that the Republicans could have stopped him? The answer to THAT is quite simple really...Obama didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT TO DO SO WOULD COST JOBS!!!

We are paying less taxes under Obama? Oh, you're spot on there, Lil...but the REASON that we're paying less taxes isn't because Obama has lowered the tax rate...oh, no...the REASON that we're paying less taxes is that we're making way less money under the Obama Economy than we were under Bush. You pay tax on INCOME...when you've got millions of people unemployed for record numbers of months and millions more underemployed and making half of what they used to make...then those people are going to pay less in taxes. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!!!!

How is it that all the people on food stamps and welfare is STILL Bush's fault? Did we not give Barry over a trillion dollars to use for stimulus? Has the Fed not been printing money as fast as the presses can press? Did Barry and his people not promise to us that if we DID give him his stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%? It went to 10 and STILL hasn't gone under 8%!!!

Well

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why can't we all just admit that both Bush "and" Obama fucked up and congress has their asses on purse strings?

Because no one has showed where/how Obama has fucked up.

Are you insane?

in a word, yes.

 

[Avorysuds]

Republicans still demanding a clean slate

Not only did they create our economic recession, they have done everything in their means to prevent us from escaping it

its ot even noon there yet, jeez, lay off the juice.

We suffered the worst economic collapse in 70 years by following the Republican principles of low taxes and deregulation. Why should the people be asked to forget that hard learned lesson?

I love how you leave out massive Government spending and massive Government programs... Now you support Obama when he cuts taxes and does the same massive Government spending as the evil Bush and congress.

It's like you're not even a real person, just a robot with programed talking points.

 

[Rshermr]

You obviously have a very short and selective memory. What took Bush 8 years to break will take more than 4 years to fix. What Bush put in motion he did not take with him when he left office. The effects of the two wars, tax cuts for the rich will be felt for decades. For three years he tried to work with the Right but their priority was to make sure Obama failed, even if it meant disaster for the country.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009 When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama.

By passing congress has been the only way he could get anything done. Tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class does not create jobs and does nothing for the debt. We are paying less taxes under Obama than under the last three or four administrations. Tax breaks for the rich is dependence of Government. The middle class made the rich wealthy and asking them to give back is not asking too much.
The present welfare and food stamp class was created by 8 years of Bush.

Obviously you cannot see the forest for the trees. Obama’s positives far outweigh the negatives that the Right dwell on.

Sorry to inject a small dose of "reality" into your fantasy world, Lil...but Barack Obama went into office with Super Majorities in the House and the Senate. He didn't have to "by pass" Congress if his policies hadn't been so gawd awful that he couldn't even convince Democrats to vote for them.

Just curious...if the Bush tax cuts don't help to create jobs then why didn't Barry get rid of them way back in 2009 when there was no way in God's green earth that the Republicans could have stopped him? The answer to THAT is quite simple really...Obama didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT TO DO SO WOULD COST JOBS!!!Actually, there never was a super majority because of the blue dog dems who always vote for no tax increases, along with the repubs. If you can show a time in history, in bad economic times, when raising federal income taxes hurt unemployment, I will call you the wonder of this site.

We are paying less taxes under Obama? Oh, you're spot on there, Lil...but the REASON that we're paying less taxes isn't because Obama has lowered the tax rate...oh, no...the REASON that we're paying less taxes is that we're making way less money under the Obama Economy than we were under Bush. You pay tax on INCOME...when you've got millions of people unemployed for record numbers of months and millions more underemployed and making half of what they used to make...then those people are going to pay less in taxes. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!!!!So, you are quite correct. Revenue has decreased due to unemployment which resulted from the great republican recession of 2008. And continues because repubs continue to block any rational proposal to help the issue. But what was said is that tax rates paid by any income class are lower than at any time since the early 1950's, and have decreased under Obama./COLOR]
.
How is it that all the people on food stamps and welfare is STILL Bush's fault? Did we not give Barry over a trillion dollars to use for stimulus? Has the Fed not been printing money as fast as the presses can press? No, the stimulus was $787B, equivilent to a couple of months in Iraq And of that, about 1/3 was in tax decreases, as a concession to repubs. Did Barry and his people not promise to us that if we DID give him his stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%? No, it was already over 9% and rising. It went to 10 and STILL hasn't gone under 8%!!!

Economists generally believed it would not go much beyond 8%. It did, however, so both they and the pres were wrong. But then, that happens. Like when Reagan promised that unemployment would decrease from 7% when he did his major tax decrease, but in fact it went to 10.8% within 15 months. Just proves that economics is not a science.

 

[Oldstyle]

You obviously have a very short and selective memory. What took Bush 8 years to break will take more than 4 years to fix. What Bush put in motion he did not take with him when he left office. The effects of the two wars, tax cuts for the rich will be felt for decades. For three years he tried to work with the Right but their priority was to make sure Obama failed, even if it meant disaster for the country.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009 When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. National debt has increased $4 trillion under Obama.

By passing congress has been the only way he could get anything done. Tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the middle class does not create jobs and does nothing for the debt. We are paying less taxes under Obama than under the last three or four administrations. Tax breaks for the rich is dependence of Government. The middle class made the rich wealthy and asking them to give back is not asking too much.
The present welfare and food stamp class was created by 8 years of Bush.

Obviously you cannot see the forest for the trees. Obama’s positives far outweigh the negatives that the Right dwell on.

Sorry to inject a small dose of "reality" into your fantasy world, Lil...but Barack Obama went into office with Super Majorities in the House and the Senate. He didn't have to "by pass" Congress if his policies hadn't been so gawd awful that he couldn't even convince Democrats to vote for them.

Just curious...if the Bush tax cuts don't help to create jobs then why didn't Barry get rid of them way back in 2009 when there was no way in God's green earth that the Republicans could have stopped him? The answer to THAT is quite simple really...Obama didn't get rid of the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT TO DO SO WOULD COST JOBS!!!

We are paying less taxes under Obama? Oh, you're spot on there, Lil...but the REASON that we're paying less taxes isn't because Obama has lowered the tax rate...oh, no...the REASON that we're paying less taxes is that we're making way less money under the Obama Economy than we were under Bush. You pay tax on INCOME...when you've got millions of people unemployed for record numbers of months and millions more underemployed and making half of what they used to make...then those people are going to pay less in taxes. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!!!!

How is it that all the people on food stamps and welfare is STILL Bush's fault? Did we not give Barry over a trillion dollars to use for stimulus? Has the Fed not been printing money as fast as the presses can press? Did Barry and his people not promise to us that if we DID give him his stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%? It went to 10 and STILL hasn't gone under 8%!!!

Well

"Well" That's your rebuttal? Too funny...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[And where, dare say, did you see Keynsian economics failing in this past recession??

now there is an utterly stupid and purely idiotic question that only a liberal could ask.

Bush and Obama have spend like drunken sailors. We are running huge deficits every year (40%); all tolled we're $16 trillion in debt but still liberals think a little more spending will stimulate the economy rather than create a bubble and depression.

A liberal will be perfectly stupid and so like a tiny child always believe there is free lunch forthcoming from magical government.

Its too brain dead for words!

 

[Avorysuds]

What I’d like to do here is take a moment and show why even talking with you RW is usually pointless and ridiculous.

This is how you control the “debate.”

1: First you need to show you pure lack of interests in truth, fact or reality. To accomplish this, in this case you place all the blame on one side “Not only did they create our economic recession, they have done everything in their means to prevent us from escaping it”

2: Next you prove you either are too stupid to understand what caused the “great Recession” or that you are purposely giving partial information. “We suffered the worst economic collapse in 70 years by following the Republican principles of low taxes and deregulate.”

3: At this point it is impossible to debate or even talk to you as you because you have no interest in accountability and rather care only to blame others even if it is wrong. No amount of information will ever sway you seeing as you discard it and repeat yourself.

You conveniently leave out the massive Government programs and spending that built the housing bubble under Clinton and Bush. You conveniently leave out that this deregulation happened under Clinton. You conveniently leave out that Dems held power since 2006 and only lost power when Clinton left office.

You blame lower taxes for “the great recession…” Huh? Why?

Knowing your position, we all know you supported Obama’s stimulus, that was packed with tax credits… Yet you claim Obama has fixed the economy, with lower taxes that you claim destroyed the economy.

You’re so busy stumbling over your own hypocrisy that when confronted with it all you have is to call others out on Bush’s hypocrisy of being against massive government spending, then doing just that… All the while you’re so outdated you can’t see that you just proved Bush was giving you exactly what you wanted.

Or maybe I have it all wrong and you can explain to me how Bush’s programs are different than Obama’s (I need direct links to policies, good luck), then how Bush’s tax cuts caused the recession but Obama’s tax credits saved us from a depression… Try not to fall to hard on your face bullshitting your way around your idiotic arguments.