Conservatives,Let's Compare First Five Years Into The Bush Years To Obama's First 5.

[Rebelitarian]

Now you don't even have to go online and do your research.
Just tell us how well off you were financially, the equity you built in your home, the numerous job offers you had to refuse because of "The Booming Bush Economy".
Wasn't unemployment around 5% back then? Homes were selling faster than the time it took for an Obama Supporter to answer "Who Is The Vice-President" ??
And what was the national debt in 2005?

No need to compare the stats of 2013. And the left thinks all is doing well? The economy is booming??

BUSH 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and now Obama all did their parts as Globalist traitors to bring America to where it is now.

All of them as well as 90% of Congress takes orders from the Bilderberg group.

Obama is just there to drive the final nails in the American coffin.

Make the Bilderberg connections to the 2 major parties folks or it'll be FEMA Camp time for America.

The Globalists are still going ahead with their plans even tho they are exposed all over the internet.

The question is are you clued in or not ?

Endgame

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho]EndGame HQ full length version - YouTube[/ame]

 

[hipeter924]

what has happened is that now we live in a time where 1/2 the population has the intelligence level the equivalent of a turnip. who in their right/normal state of mind would vote for "U-No-Who" considering what happened on September 11, 2001?

Bush's education plan, which goes something like this 'greed is good', 'the market can do no wrong', 'healthcare is a privilege not a right', 'universities should be allowed to burden students with so much debt they go bankrupt', 'minimum wages are satan's work', 'the poor don't deserve our help', and the list goes on.

 

[RandallFlagg]

what has happened is that now we live in a time where 1/2 the population has the intelligence level the equivalent of a turnip. who in their right/normal state of mind would vote for "U-No-Who" considering what happened on September 11, 2001?

Bush's education plan, which goes something like this 'greed is good', 'the market can do no wrong', 'healthcare is a privilege not a right', 'universities should be allowed to burden students with so much debt they go bankrupt', 'minimum wages are satan's work', 'the poor don't deserve our help', and the list goes on.

(1) Greed IS good. that's why those with jobs strive to do better for themselves and their families.

(2) "the market can do no wrong". The market is nothing more than a piston in the engine. I understand that it upsets you when people profit in the market. I have dallied in the market for 30 years and am nothing more than a middle-class retiree.

(3) "healthcare is a privilege not a right". Show me ANYWHERE where it is written that healthcare is a right. ANYWHERE. I have never been without healthcare a day in my life, but I paid for it.

(4) "universities should be allowed to burden students with so much debt they go bankrupt". Again, who made that statement? No one that I know of. Universities, whether they be public or private are nothing more than companies selling a variety of products for a price. You don't like the price? Don't go.

(5) "minimum wages are satans work". Weird, never really heard it put like that, but understandable. Minimum wage is a wage designed to help the newcomers to the market. 3% of teenagers who actually work, get minimum wage. If you are arguing that someone who flips burgers should be paid $15 per hour, then you are insane.

(6) "The poor don't deserve our help" of course they do. But not from cradle to grave. I have no trouble whatsoever helping those who have fallen on hard times. but only temporarily. If you refuse to better yourself in favor of living on MY dime - then starve to death.

There is something in this life called "personal responsibility". it's what makes adults out of children.

 

[TooTall]

what has happened is that now we live in a time where 1/2 the population has the intelligence level the equivalent of a turnip. who in their right/normal state of mind would vote for "U-No-Who" considering what happened on September 11, 2001?

Bush's education plan, which goes something like this 'greed is good', 'the market can do no wrong', 'healthcare is a privilege not a right', 'universities should be allowed to burden students with so much debt they go bankrupt', 'minimum wages are satan's work', 'the poor don't deserve our help', and the list goes on.

That would be the 'no child left behind' program authored by none other than Senator Ted Kennedy and passed by Congress. Shame on you for condemning that great liberal Senator from Massachusetts.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

what happened in 2008 was "Greed". it proved to be the root of all evil,,,millions of americans who wanted it all, and wanted it ASAP !!!!

 

[hipeter924]

what has happened is that now we live in a time where 1/2 the population has the intelligence level the equivalent of a turnip. who in their right/normal state of mind would vote for "U-No-Who" considering what happened on September 11, 2001?

Bush's education plan, which goes something like this 'greed is good', 'the market can do no wrong', 'healthcare is a privilege not a right', 'universities should be allowed to burden students with so much debt they go bankrupt', 'minimum wages are satan's work', 'the poor don't deserve our help', and the list goes on.

That would be the 'no child left behind' program authored by none other than Senator Ted Kennedy and passed by Congress. Shame on you for condemning that great liberal Senator from Massachusetts.

No it isn't, it was called neo-liberalism, has existed from Reagan right through to Bush Jr. Wonder how you didn't hear of it. Interesting how you think Ted Kennedy supports neoliberalism, next you will be telling me President Roosevelt supported stripping away social welfare.

 

[Vox]

Simplistic much?

exactly right for the message board

 

[Vox]

two or three pages ago I posted my scale of the responsibilities ( which is not mine, obviously, I am not an economist) for the 2008 meltdown
1) the repeal of the Glass-Steagall plus easing of the financial regulations - solely on Clinton Admin
2) the greediness of the financial sector which immediately jumped into the risky business - that is a non-partisan part, however big financial kahunas tend to support Democrats
2) the US Government pressure on the financial sector to "give the opportunity" to un-creditworthy borrowers for mortgages - solely democrats to be blamed for
3)the refusal of democrats to more strictly regulate and oversee Fanny and Freddie - solely on democrats
4) greedy unqualified borrower of the loans he/she can not repay - bipartisan

Now if "the repeal of the Glass-Steagall plus easing of the financial regulations - solely on Clinton Admin". Oh really?
===========================================
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
<snip>
Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.
<snip>
The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343&#8211;86 (Republicans 205&#8211;16; Democrats 138&#8211;69; Independent 0&#8211;1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54&#8211;44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed
Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
===============================================
So, as we can see, the bill that repealed Glass-Stegall was named Gramm-Leach-Bliley three Republicans who authored different versions that were merged into the said bill. This bill passed the GOP controlled House and Senate. Yet, it was all Bill Clinton's fault! Thanks Vox!

It was bipartisan bill
I am sure Vox knows that
Clinton KNEW it would hurt the economy. He was such a ***** he let Rubins ***** ass talk him intop signing it ANYWAYS. Who knew that Rubin would go work for Citigroup
Clinton got played for a fool
Thought the buck stops at the WH?

well, it is ALL BOOOOSH when you have a Senate and the House all the dimpcrap majority ( starting 2006 and filibustering before that) obstructing any meaningful reform done, in order to prevent the bubble burst, or, at least, to ease it, but it is the results of the Republicans if the law passes the Senate as a bipartisan one and gets signed by a democrat prez.
Talk about hypocrisy

So, by leftards rule - abolishing Glass-Steagall is ALL dimocraps fault.

he could have vetoed it, couldn't he?

 

[Vox]

Simplistic much?

The Bush Economy - WSJ.com

Well, we all know that the Wall Street Journal is a liberal rag. Oh wait, it's not. It's conservative and owned by News Corp.
Interestingly, that article mirrors much of what I have pointed out to partisans in my posts. Of course they refuse to look at historical facts. No, they just keep on humming along with talking points. Of course all the blame is just on their political opposition, no one else, just the other side. Sad.

I am glad we agree.

Democrats like to claim the 1990s were a golden age while the Bush years have been disastrous. But as the nearby chart shows, Mr. Bush inherited a recession. The dot-com bubble had burst in 2000, and the economy was sinking even before the shock of 9/11, the corporate scandals and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mr. Bush's original tax-cut proposal was designed in part as insurance against such a downturn.

 

[TooTall]

Does mean Clinton could take full credit for welfare reform and everything else that went right?

Sure he can, after he vetoed it several times and the polls finally convinced him he was behind the curve.

he vetoed it several times until he got a version that wasn't so mean-spirited.

And on his watch, we produced good jobs, so it wasn't such an imposition.

BS, he finally signed it because it was good politics.

I don't know who the WE is you refer too, but Newt and the House dragged Clinton kicking and screaming all the way to a balance budget that created a climate for the private sector to prosper.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure he can, after he vetoed it several times and the polls finally convinced him he was behind the curve.

he vetoed it several times until he got a version that wasn't so mean-spirited.

And on his watch, we produced good jobs, so it wasn't such an imposition.

BS, he finally signed it because it was good politics.

I don't know who the WE is you refer too, but Newt and the House dragged Clinton kicking and screaming all the way to a balance budget that created a climate for the private sector to prosper.

The budget wouldn't have been balanced if Clinton hadn't raised taxes on Rich People.

Balancing the budget didn't change the economy one bit. What changed was that on Clinton's watch, we stopped spending money on wasteful military spenidng and put it into roads and bridges and stuff people need.

Of course, the1%ers hated that, because despite making record profits, they had to share with the proles, and we couldn't have that.