Failure

[MintJulep]

This is what it looks like:

http://www.nonsensenews.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/angry-obama-251x300.jpg

Obama Blames Bush Again for the Economy

"Obama criticizes the economic policies of former President Bush and the current "partisan minority" in Congress. Obama asks Republicans to drop the economic "blockade."

Video at link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/08/30/obama_it_took_nearly_a_decade_to_dig_the_hole_that _were_in.html

[Libertarian94]

So? What surprises you about a politician acting like a politician?

[MintJulep]

After two years, I would step up to the plate and assume the responsibility I agreed to when I took the job.

He shouldn't have taken the job if he knew he was incapable of doing it.

[John Galt]

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

The repubs are going to find out if their hatred of this country is going to work in November.

They've kept us from digging out from their failed policies, and they'll be called on it in the next couple of months.

It's going to be an interesting fall.

It'll boil down to whether or not independents are willing to allow the republicans to create a full blown depression, or are they going to come out and vote this year?

[MintJulep]

I think you'll hear a lot of people sayin' this.

Eo-KmOd3i7s

[bairdi]

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

The repubs are going to find out if their hatred of this country is going to work in November.

They've kept us from digging out from their failed policies, and they'll be called on it in the next couple of months.

It's going to be an interesting fall.

It'll boil down to whether or not independents are willing to allow the republicans to create a full blown depression, or are they going to come out and vote this year?
:thumbsup: I am just waiting for the backlash. It's definitely coming and will be here before November.

[Libertarian94]

After two years, I would step up to the plate and assume the responsibility I agreed to when I took the job.

He shouldn't have taken the job if he knew he was incapable of doing it.

They are politicians mint its not thread worthy the GOP did their fair share of finger pointing. They just point the finger the other direction all the while nothing changes they continue the same policies and the public is none the wiser.

[MintJulep]

They are politicians mint its not thread worthy the GOP did their fair share of finger pointing. They just point the finger the other direction all the while nothing changes they continue the same policies and the public is none the wiser.No, it's not the same.

Bush never blamed Clinton. Obama has blamed Bush so many times now it isn't even countable and he is a pathetic loser for doing so.

Own it.

[Hawkeye2j]

No, it's not the same.

Bush never blamed Clinton. Obama has blamed Bush so many times now it isn't even countable and he is a pathetic loser for doing so.

Own it.
Bush and the Republicans constantly blamed Clinton. Were you in hiding for eight years?

[Hawkeye2j]

Bush Resumes Pathetic Lies Blaming Clinton For His Poor Economy

by Steve
Dana Milbank continues to earn his reputation as the Washington Post reporter the Bushies like least this morning. Milbank runs a story that basically points out several examples of Bush flat-out lying, in his recent comments on the economy (three years into his administration it is still Clinton’s fault), anti-sodomy laws, and the University of Michigan law school affirmative action case. But of course to apologists like the Times’ David Rosenbaum, Bush cannot be accused of lying if he actually believed what he was saying, even if he had been shown to be wrong.

With the start of his reelection campaign in the past two weeks, President Bush has revived his pastime of blaming his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for the economic recession.

"Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession," he told donors at a Bush-Cheney '04 reception yesterday in Miami. He has raised the same accusation in fundraising appearances since mid-June in Washington, Georgia, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

It's a good applause line for a crowd of red-meat political supporters. The trouble is it's a case of what the president has called, in another context, revisionist history. The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself.

The bad news came on Nov. 26, 2001. The NBER, led by an informal economic adviser to Bush, Martin Feldstein, pronounced that economic activity peaked in March 2001, "a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began."

At the time, Bush accepted the verdict with perfect accuracy. "This week, the official announcement came that our economy has been in recession since March," he said in his radio address the next weekend. "And unfortunately, to a lot of Americans, that news comes as no surprise. Many have lost jobs or seen their hours cut. Many have seen friends or family laid off. The long economic expansion that started 10 years ago, in 1991, began to slow last year. Many economists warned me when I took office that a recession was beginning, so we took quick action."

That quick action has led to three tax cuts that have done nothing to stop the loss of nearly three million jobs. Since Bush wanted to be seen as having taken “quick action” to spur the economy back into positive territory, which it did, the resulting sluggish and job-less performance of the economy is squarely his responsibility, as are the ballooning deficits that followed. Oh sure, he can claim 9/11, but even Bush isn’t claiming 9/11 as a reason any more. He is blaming it all on Clinton.

It does make it easy for any Democrat to follow Bush around the country and call him a liar on stuff like this, doesn’t it? But I doubt the New York Times would call Bush on his lies. They are too busy kissing the GOP’s ass since Howell Raines resigned.

What does it say about a man who is unable to accept responsibility for his own screw-ups? Can you think of one instance where Bush took responsibility for something that has not gone well since he got into office, or in Texas for that matter?

Tell Dana Milbank you appreciate his efforts to point out Bush’s lies. You can reach him at milbankd@washpost.com
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000360.php

[bairdi]

Bush and the Republicans constantly blamed Clinton. Were you in hiding for eight years?
Some people only see what they want to see.

[Libertarian94]

No, it's not the same.

Bush never blamed Clinton. Obama has blamed Bush so many times now it isn't even countable and he is a pathetic loser for doing so.

Own it.

Im not arguing that Im saying politicians are douchebags no matter what side your on. Bush was a D-bag.

Own it.

[MintJulep]

Im not arguing that Im saying politicians are douchebags no matter what side your on. Bush was a D-bag.

Own it.And I don't disagree all politicians are douchebags. I'm just saying I've never seen a President blame his predecessor this many times and for this long. In fact, I don't recall a President continually blaming his predecessor ever until now.

[Hawkeye2j]

And I don't disagree all politicians are douchebags. I'm just saying I've never seen a President blame his predecessor this many times and for this long. In fact, I don't recall a President continually blaming his predecessor ever until now.
Then you weren't watching Bush. Obama has got to let the public know who caused this mess to keep them from being given the power to do it all over again.

[Libertarian94]

And I don't disagree all politicians are douchebags. I'm just saying I've never seen a President blame his predecessor this many times and for this long. In fact, I don't recall a President continually blaming his predecessor ever until now.


Mint its not unprecedented at all its actualy kind of silly to point out that a politician act like the scum he is. Probably the only reason you dont remember any other time a president blamed his predecessor is because fox selectively leaves out what they please when the letter (R) is next to their name.

:hi: Welcome to reality this game has been played for ages.

[MintJulep]

Then you weren't watching Bush. Obama has got to let the public know who caused this mess to keep them from being given the power to do it all over again.Bush never blamed Clinton, and certainly not over and over again for TWO years.

It's two years later, Hawk. His policies aren't working. Time to own it or step aside and let someone more qualified get the job done. This is NOT leadership. This is the petulant behavior of a school child, not a President.

[Hawkeye2j]

Bush never blamed Clinton, and certainly not over and over again for TWO years.

It's two years later, Hawk. His policies aren't working. Time to own it or step aside and let someone more qualified get the job done. This is NOT leadership. This is the petulant behavior of a school child, not a President.
His policies are working. We are in much better shape than we were when Bush left. More jobs have been created. GM has been saved. The problem with moving forward is the Republicans are blocking the bill to help small businesses.

[Moby]

After two years, I would step up to the plate and assume the responsibility I agreed to when I took the job.

He shouldn't have taken the job if he knew he was incapable of doing it.
Like Reagan did? Wasn't the economy still turning south at this point in his Presidency?

[Trinnity]

:thumbsup: I am just waiting for the backlash. It's definitely coming and will be here before November.It's here NOW. You think it's gonna burn out. Nope.

[BlueSpoon]

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

The repubs are going to find out if their hatred of this country is going to work in November.

They've kept us from digging out from their failed policies, and they'll be called on it in the next couple of months.

It's going to be an interesting fall.

It'll boil down to whether or not independents are willing to allow the republicans to create a full blown depression, or are they going to come out and vote this year?
You know that the Dems have controlled Congress, right? The Republicans can't stop anything and haven't been able to for how long now?

[BlueSpoon]

Bush and the Republicans constantly blamed Clinton. Were you in hiding for eight years?
B...b...b... Buuuuuuuush... Why does it always go back to him?

[MintJulep]

Like Reagan did? Wasn't the economy still turning south at this point in his Presidency?Do you have an example of Reagan blaming Carter for two solid years -- or even once?

That was the point of the thread. Blaming your predecessor, over and over and over again. Ad nauseum.

[dsolo802]

B...b...b... Buuuuuuuush... Why does it always go back to him?Well, he was a powerful fuck up - you've got to give me that.

Anyway, "not me" is more like what is being said. When the GOP is constantly trying to blame the current administration for crises it inherited from administrations past, and policies past, it is certainly fair to point out, as Bobby Dylan used to, "It Ain't me Babe."

[doctordog]

Well, he was a powerful fuck up - you've got to give me that.

Anyway, "not me" is more like what is being said. When the GOP is constantly trying to blame the current administration for crises it inherited from administrations past, and policies past, it is certainly fair to point out, as Bobby Dylan used to, "It Ain't me Babe."

the CBO put out report saying the Democratic led Congress Stimulus Bill cost us more that than all of the Iraq war, so this constant blame game by the past President of the PTA is getting old. He needs a new speech writer.

[dsolo802]

the CBO put out report saying the Democratic led Congress Stimulus Bill cost us more that than all of the Iraq war, so this constant blame game by the past President of the PTA is getting old. He needs a new speech writer.The CBO also said that the Health Care Reform legislation will save the country billions of dollars. Live by the CBO, die by the CBO. Which one of your two arguments do you want to give up?

If you are ready to be consistent about relying on CBO, and throw their work out, there are other experts who would disagree with their assessment. For example:

And the number could be much higher depending how broadly you define the cost of the war. Some experts believe you should include the continuing costs of disability compensation and medical care for Iraqi war veterans -- costs that will last for decades.

Linda Bilmes, senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of the Three Trillion Dollar War, argues that official government estimates of the war’s costs are too low because they do not take into account costs such as higher combat pay and recruiting costs, Social Security disability payments for veterans who can no longer work, the cost of restoring the military to its pre-war strength (replacing the bullets and bombs that have been used). She and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist at Columbia University, argue that the "true" cost of Iraq will be several trillion dollars. (emphasis added)

Bilmes also notes that there are a higher number of disabled veterans from the war in Iraq than in previous wars. According to Bilmes, there are eight veterans wounded in combat in Iraq per fatality, compared with 2.6 wounded in combat per fatality in Vietnam. In addition, she said in an e-mail, 10 percent of Vietnam veterans enrolled in Veterans Administration health care -- whereas 44 percent of Iraq veterans have already enrolled in VA health care. Her book estimates the long-term cost of continuing medical care of Iraq and Afghanistan vets to be hundreds of billions of dollars.

So let’s recap. If it were true that the war and its costs had truly ended today, then Tapscott would be right. But he says that the stimulus will cost more than the "entire" war, and we are persuaded by the experts that with nearly 50,000 troops still in Iraq, it is premature to say the war is over. And when you make reasonable adjustments for inflation, the expected costs of the troops still there and the long-term cost of medical care and re-stocking the military for all the bullets and bombs, it appears likely the war costs will exceed the stimulus. So we find his claim Barely True.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/mark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/
(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/mark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/)
What I find to be most pertinent here is the net: Even if you go by the CBO's numbers, engaging in regime change did not add jobs to our economy, the stimulus did to the tune of some 3 million jobs:

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.

It's impossible to determine precisely how many jobs or how much growth the stimulus program caused. In a nearly $14 trillion economy, economists can't go employer to employer counting new hires. And there are too many moving parts to confidently link any single factor with individual hiring decisions. Roughly one-third of the stimulus, for example, came in the form of tax cuts, which are designed to boost demand for a wide array of products and eventually result in related hiring.

But to estimate the answers to such questions, economists rely on models based on historical relationships between various policies and real-world results. Earlier this month, Zandi and co-author Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, released the most detailed assessment of the government's efforts to combat the so-called Great Recession. Neither economist is regarded as a partisan firebrand. Zandi, for example, backed John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign and has advised members of both parties.

Their conclusion: The fiscal stimulus created 2.7 million jobs and added $460 billion to gross domestic product. Unemployment would be 11% today if the stimulus hadn't been passed and 16.5% if neither the fiscal stimulus nor the banks' rescue had been enacted, according to Zandi and Blinder. "It's pretty hard to deny that it had a measurable impact," Zandi said.Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm)

And not only that, the stimulus pumped additional money into the economy which certainly had a stimulative impact on existing business concerns.

So, war bad. Stimulus good. Stimulus wins.

[Hawkeye2j]

B...b...b... Buuuuuuuush... Why does it always go back to him?
Ask Minty. She brought him up, not me.

[doctordog]

The CBO also said that the Health Care Reform legislation will save the country billions of dollars. Live by the CBO, die by the CBO. Which one of your two arguments do you want to give up?

If you are ready to be consistent about relying on CBO, and throw their work out, there are other experts who would disagree with their assessment. For example:

And the number could be much higher depending how broadly you define the cost of the war. Some experts believe you should include the continuing costs of disability compensation and medical care for Iraqi war veterans -- costs that will last for decades.

Linda Bilmes, senior lecturer in public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and co-author of the Three Trillion Dollar War, argues that official government estimates of the war’s costs are too low because they do not take into account costs such as higher combat pay and recruiting costs, Social Security disability payments for veterans who can no longer work, the cost of restoring the military to its pre-war strength (replacing the bullets and bombs that have been used). She and Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist at Columbia University, argue that the "true" cost of Iraq will be several trillion dollars. (emphasis added)

Bilmes also notes that there are a higher number of disabled veterans from the war in Iraq than in previous wars. According to Bilmes, there are eight veterans wounded in combat in Iraq per fatality, compared with 2.6 wounded in combat per fatality in Vietnam. In addition, she said in an e-mail, 10 percent of Vietnam veterans enrolled in Veterans Administration health care -- whereas 44 percent of Iraq veterans have already enrolled in VA health care. Her book estimates the long-term cost of continuing medical care of Iraq and Afghanistan vets to be hundreds of billions of dollars.

So let’s recap. If it were true that the war and its costs had truly ended today, then Tapscott would be right. But he says that the stimulus will cost more than the "entire" war, and we are persuaded by the experts that with nearly 50,000 troops still in Iraq, it is premature to say the war is over. And when you make reasonable adjustments for inflation, the expected costs of the troops still there and the long-term cost of medical care and re-stocking the military for all the bullets and bombs, it appears likely the war costs will exceed the stimulus. So we find his claim Barely True.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/mark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/
(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/25/mark-tapscott/did-stimulus-cost-more-war-iraq/)
What I find to be most pertinent here is the net: Even if you go by the CBO's numbers, engaging in regime change did not add jobs to our economy, the stimulus did to the tune of some 3 million jobs:

It's no surprise that the administration would proclaim its own policies a success. But its verdict is backed by economists at Goldman Sachs, IHS Global Insight, JPMorgan Chase and Macroeconomic Advisers, who say the stimulus boosted gross domestic product by 2.1% to 2.7%.

It's impossible to determine precisely how many jobs or how much growth the stimulus program caused. In a nearly $14 trillion economy, economists can't go employer to employer counting new hires. And there are too many moving parts to confidently link any single factor with individual hiring decisions. Roughly one-third of the stimulus, for example, came in the form of tax cuts, which are designed to boost demand for a wide array of products and eventually result in related hiring.

But to estimate the answers to such questions, economists rely on models based on historical relationships between various policies and real-world results. Earlier this month, Zandi and co-author Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, released the most detailed assessment of the government's efforts to combat the so-called Great Recession. Neither economist is regarded as a partisan firebrand. Zandi, for example, backed John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign and has advised members of both parties.

Their conclusion: The fiscal stimulus created 2.7 million jobs and added $460 billion to gross domestic product. Unemployment would be 11% today if the stimulus hadn't been passed and 16.5% if neither the fiscal stimulus nor the banks' rescue had been enacted, according to Zandi and Blinder. "It's pretty hard to deny that it had a measurable impact," Zandi said.Economists agree: Stimulus created nearly 3 million jobs (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm)

And not only that, the stimulus pumped additional money into the economy which certainly had a stimulative impact on existing business concerns.

So, war bad. Stimulus good. Stimulus wins.

God damn, no wonder you are such a great litigator, people grow tired of listening to you and give in, please try to make a point in 25 words or less, shit.:p

[dsolo802]

God damn, no wonder you are such a great litigator, people grow tired of listening to you and give in, please try to make a point in 25 words or less, shit.:pC'mon Wayers, you know I'm just practicing my touch typing. It's a valuable skill and I think I may need it in the years ahead. It's either that for me or I could try to make a go as one of those human signs.

[doctordog]

C'mon Wayers, you know I'm just practicing my touch typing. It's a valuable skill and I think I may need it in the years ahead. It's either that for me or I could try to make a go as one of those human signs.

:lmao2: :thumbsup: