Worst President in U.S. History

[Dad2three]

Democrats promise bad government and deliver bad government.

Republicans promise good government but deliver bad government.

Trying to shift the blame for out of control debt ridden government from the Democrats to the Republicans because the Republicans act like Democrats when in power may be amusing but does not excuse the Democrats for their failures.

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. P. J. O'Rourke

 

[Andylusion]

Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!

Dishonest POS conservatives!


PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol

Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!

I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

I appologize for interupting. I placed Dad2Three on my ignore list ages ago for exactly the behavior you are seeing here.

I'll just briefly explain what I experienced with him. He repeats himself over and over again, without adding anything new to the discussion. When presented with contradictory evidence, not only does he not at a minimum consider the evidence, but he doesn't usually even examine the evidence to try and deny the evidence. His "arguments" typically involve increasing the font size, and making blanket accusations of all "conservatives".

Adding to this anti-intellectual mentality, he adds in sarcasm and mockery.

If you wish to keep talking to him, knock yourself out. But don't expect to ever get anywhere on any issue of discussion. Not with dad2three. Expect to get more of the same, and circular arguments.

If you wish to be blissfully unaware of this troll, the process to ignore, is very simple. Click on his name. A menu will pop up, and click on the "ignore", and you will never be bothered by the troll again. The best upgrade of the new forum software is that the "ignore" function is 100%. You won't see him at all, ever again. It's fantastic.

Best to you.

 

[Andylusion]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

I appologize for interupting. I placed Dad2Three on my ignore list ages ago for exactly the behavior you are seeing here.

I'll just briefly explain what I experienced with him. He repeats himself over and over again, without adding anything new to the discussion. When presented with contradictory evidence, not only does he not at a minimum consider the evidence, but he doesn't usually even examine the evidence to try and deny the evidence. His "arguments" typically involve increasing the font size, and making blanket accusations of all "conservatives".

Adding to this anti-intellectual mentality, he adds in sarcasm and mockery.

If you wish to keep talking to him, knock yourself out. But don't expect to ever get anywhere on any issue of discussion. Not with dad2three. Expect to get more of the same, and circular arguments.

If you wish to be blissfully unaware of this troll, the process to ignore, is very simple. Click on his name. A menu will pop up, and click on the "ignore", and you will never be bothered by the troll again. The best upgrade of the new forum software is that the "ignore" function is 100%. You won't see him at all, ever again. It's fantastic.

Best to you.

Thanks, but I figured it out.

I think I'm going to avoid posting to clown faces in the future.

 

[regent]

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

So why not just ignore him rather than write a thesis on why you ignore him, which obviously you're not.
February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

I appologize for interupting. I placed Dad2Three on my ignore list ages ago for exactly the behavior you are seeing here.

I'll just briefly explain what I experienced with him. He repeats himself over and over again, without adding anything new to the discussion. When presented with contradictory evidence, not only does he not at a minimum consider the evidence, but he doesn't usually even examine the evidence to try and deny the evidence. His "arguments" typically involve increasing the font size, and making blanket accusations of all "conservatives".

Adding to this anti-intellectual mentality, he adds in sarcasm and mockery.

If you wish to keep talking to him, knock yourself out. But don't expect to ever get anywhere on any issue of discussion. Not with dad2three. Expect to get more of the same, and circular arguments.

If you wish to be blissfully unaware of this troll, the process to ignore, is very simple. Click on his name. A menu will pop up, and click on the "ignore", and you will never be bothered by the troll again. The best upgrade of the new forum software is that the "ignore" function is 100%. You won't see him at all, ever again. It's fantastic.

Best to you.

 

[Dad2three]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Nope his regulator failure did. His ineptitude just harmed US in the way we dealt with it!

 

[Dad2three]

No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.

Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

I appologize for interupting. I placed Dad2Three on my ignore list ages ago for exactly the behavior you are seeing here.

I'll just briefly explain what I experienced with him. He repeats himself over and over again, without adding anything new to the discussion. When presented with contradictory evidence, not only does he not at a minimum consider the evidence, but he doesn't usually even examine the evidence to try and deny the evidence. His "arguments" typically involve increasing the font size, and making blanket accusations of all "conservatives".

Adding to this anti-intellectual mentality, he adds in sarcasm and mockery.

If you wish to keep talking to him, knock yourself out. But don't expect to ever get anywhere on any issue of discussion. Not with dad2three. Expect to get more of the same, and circular arguments.

If you wish to be blissfully unaware of this troll, the process to ignore, is very simple. Click on his name. A menu will pop up, and click on the "ignore", and you will never be bothered by the troll again. The best upgrade of the new forum software is that the "ignore" function is 100%. You won't see him at all, ever again. It's fantastic.

Best to you.

Another dishonest POS conservative. Shocking

STILL waiting for ANY conservative to show me just ONE policy the conservatives were on the correct side of history on in the US? Just one please?

 

[Andylusion]

February 4, 2008

Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0



Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables


NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol

It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.

So in your world, that means the final F/Y budget, which was finally put in place, wasn't the responsibility like EVERY other US Prez in his final year?? Even though spending was just about the same, yet revenues plummeted and the extra $200 billion CAN be put on Obama's shoulders? Honesty. Try it!

Yes, that's right. He didn't sign; Obama did. Provisions in it were not what W would have proposed.

Now may we move on?

I appologize for interupting. I placed Dad2Three on my ignore list ages ago for exactly the behavior you are seeing here.

I'll just briefly explain what I experienced with him. He repeats himself over and over again, without adding anything new to the discussion. When presented with contradictory evidence, not only does he not at a minimum consider the evidence, but he doesn't usually even examine the evidence to try and deny the evidence. His "arguments" typically involve increasing the font size, and making blanket accusations of all "conservatives".

Adding to this anti-intellectual mentality, he adds in sarcasm and mockery.

If you wish to keep talking to him, knock yourself out. But don't expect to ever get anywhere on any issue of discussion. Not with dad2three. Expect to get more of the same, and circular arguments.

If you wish to be blissfully unaware of this troll, the process to ignore, is very simple. Click on his name. A menu will pop up, and click on the "ignore", and you will never be bothered by the troll again. The best upgrade of the new forum software is that the "ignore" function is 100%. You won't see him at all, ever again. It's fantastic.

Best to you.

Thanks, but I figured it out.

I think I'm going to avoid posting to clown faces in the future.

I've always thought that nature should mark 'stupid' so everyone can easily tell who they are. Thankfully, the stupid mark themselves so everyone can see them coming.

 

[The Rabbi]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Dana started off pretending to be some kind of respectable photographer or something. Now she just posts parroted bumper sticker crap talking points that dont really make sense.
Bush crashed the economy? Seriously? The GOP warned about the coming mortgage crisis. The WSJ wrote many editorials on Freddie Mac, warning their policies would lead to disaster. They were right. Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress wanted to "roll the dice" on them. They turned up snake eyes and of course everyone wanted to blame Bush.

 

[Dad2three]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Dana started off pretending to be some kind of respectable photographer or something. Now she just posts parroted bumper sticker crap talking points that dont really make sense.
Bush crashed the economy? Seriously? The GOP warned about the coming mortgage crisis. The WSJ wrote many editorials on Freddie Mac, warning their policies would lead to disaster. They were right. Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress wanted to "roll the dice" on them. They turned up snake eyes and of course everyone wanted to blame Bush.

Barney? Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 where simple majority rules? PLEASE tell me his super powers?? lol

Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (2004)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

FACTS on Dubya's great recession

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Dana started off pretending to be some kind of respectable photographer or something. Now she just posts parroted bumper sticker crap talking points that dont really make sense.
Bush crashed the economy? Seriously? The GOP warned about the coming mortgage crisis. The WSJ wrote many editorials on Freddie Mac, warning their policies would lead to disaster. They were right. Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress wanted to "roll the dice" on them. They turned up snake eyes and of course everyone wanted to blame Bush.

Fannie, Freddie and the Right Wing Myth of a "Mortgage Meltdown"

"At the end of the day what really matters is losses," said Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics. "Where are the losses?"


But where are the losses?

As the one Pinto-skeptic in the room, Zandi proceeded to answer his own question, "Where are the losses?" As of year-end 2013, approximately $1 trillion in credit losses on pre-crisis loans had been realized. But the realized loss rate among different sectors varied considerably. Best in class were Fannie and Freddie, with a realized loss rate of 3%. Then came depository institutions, like banks, which had a realized loss rate of 6%. The strong outlier was private label mortgage securities, with a realized loss rate of 23%, seven times that of the GSEs.

These numbers are in line with Laurie Goodman's 2010 projections, which showed a 24% overall loss rate on private 1st lien securities. And Zandi's 2013 numbers are consistent with his year-end 2012 numbers, which showed private label losses as 51% of the grand total, and GSE losses as 14% of the nationwide total.

These lopsided disparities are confirmed over and over from data going back two decades. By any standard"--"delinquencies, defaults, loss severity"--"GSE mortgages perform exponentially better than the rest of the market, whereas private label mortgages perform exponentially worse. To state otherwise is to lie.

Article Fannie Freddie and the Right Wing Myth of a Mortgage Meltdown OpEdNews




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis Economics McClatchy DC

 

[Dad2three]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Dana started off pretending to be some kind of respectable photographer or something. Now she just posts parroted bumper sticker crap talking points that dont really make sense.
Bush crashed the economy? Seriously? The GOP warned about the coming mortgage crisis. The WSJ wrote many editorials on Freddie Mac, warning their policies would lead to disaster. They were right. Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress wanted to "roll the dice" on them. They turned up snake eyes and of course everyone wanted to blame Bush.

I'll wait for a response Bubba

No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)

1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom


2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis

3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it: This is not exactly an obscure corner of the wonk world — it is one of the most studied capital markets in the world. What has other research found on this matter?


4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now




MY FAV:

AEI'S Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”


Hey Mayor Bloomberg No the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown but thats just according to the data The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Dana started off pretending to be some kind of respectable photographer or something. Now she just posts parroted bumper sticker crap talking points that dont really make sense.
Bush crashed the economy? Seriously? The GOP warned about the coming mortgage crisis. The WSJ wrote many editorials on Freddie Mac, warning their policies would lead to disaster. They were right. Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress wanted to "roll the dice" on them. They turned up snake eyes and of course everyone wanted to blame Bush.

YOO HOO BUBBA? NOTHING ON ME DEMOLISHING YOUR TALKING POINTS? lol

Conservatives NEVER can stick with reality, BECAUSE they are NEVER on the correct side of history!!!

 

[boilermaker55]

Do you know how to read a graph with statistics?
NOT!

Funny how every time I bother to look this stuff up, the picture isn't as brilliant as the left claim.

You are telling me that 2002 to 2008 was worse, than the jobless claims from 2009 to 2011? The numbers clearly show different.

 

[Dad2three]

The thing is that the economy collapsed in September 2008.

The fiscal budget for year 2009 started on October 1.

There was a budget for the fiscal year 2008 in place when the bush boy collapsed the economy.

That's quite irrelevant. The presidential budget didn't crash the economy anyway.

Dana started off pretending to be some kind of respectable photographer or something. Now she just posts parroted bumper sticker crap talking points that dont really make sense.
Bush crashed the economy? Seriously? The GOP warned about the coming mortgage crisis. The WSJ wrote many editorials on Freddie Mac, warning their policies would lead to disaster. They were right. Barney Frank and the Dems in Congress wanted to "roll the dice" on them. They turned up snake eyes and of course everyone wanted to blame Bush.

Weird, I demolished your right wing talking point yesterday yet you've refused to respond, lol