Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 2

Originally Posted by franksargent

My point exactly, Obama is a one term POTUS, the R's regain both houses and POTUS.

2012 - 1946 = 66 years (Boomers start to retire in droves)

Obama get's his health care reform bill this year, so that we now have to fund three rather large non-discretionary programs.

Unemployment reaches 30% in 2013 and stays there, or get's even worse, for the rest of the century.

Republicans pass massive tax cuts until the entire frderal tax burdens are no more.

Republicams would still be funding our two current wars but with the draft reinstated and much higher annual costs.

Democrats see this super duper shitstorm coming, and disband their party entirely.

Republicans start pulling the plugs on everyone (Granny, Grandpa, Mom, Pop, brother, and sister), death squads, and mass graves.

It's kind of like a hot potato, just gotta make it land in the Republicals lap at just the right time.

2012 will be that time. Remember, you heard it here first.

It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I was referring to your statement, which was incomprehensible



Tacitly? So "they" claimed it without claiming it? The claim itself is unsupportable, even if you could (or would) define who "they" are.



This may be news to you jimmac, but the world does not hang on your every word, as if you're some kind of all-knowing political professor. The fact that you've "been over something" just means you at some point stated your opinion, which was likely not agreed upon then--and certainly not now.

Secondly, the only answer you've ever provided is "Deregulation." . You've never explained what "deregulation" was in your opinion (I still contend you don't know). Of course, assuming you did know (which you don't), it doesn't explain a damn thing. The "deregulation" you claim is 1. not really deregulation at all and 2. Started long before Bush. On the first point, it was specific NEW regulations on the mortgage/banking industry that helped cause the problem (forced sub-prime loans, liar's loans, low income area loans, etc). The second point is self-explanatory.




You mean like tripling the deficit through a "stimulus" bill and a trillion dollar government takeover of healthcare? Ignoring requests for more troops in Afghanistan...those things? Oh wait..that stuff isn't his fault, because most of them started before he was in office! He's not actually responsible for what he does in response...all his decisions are considered "good" because he didn't start it. Gotcha.



I've never claimed Clinton did anything specific to cause the recession in 2000. However, tax rates were higher, so in my opinion we were not as well insulated against economic slowdowns. Either way, it started on his watch, just as the most recent one started on Bush's. The difference is what the next Presidents did about the recessions. In 2001 and 2003, we had large tax cuts that clearly stimulated the economy. Obama has done nothing but spend shitloads of money that we don't have. And please recall, Bush was took action in mid 2008 to stem the recession he saw coming, through tax rebates. While not the best idea, it was better than spending 787 billion on pork, then calling it "stimulus."

The bottom line is that we have to look at specific policies and whether or not they make sense. We can't just look at outcomes. No one in his right mind believes that the pork--eh..stimulus will truly work. No one believes that annual deficit spending that approaches 6% of GDP is a good thing.

This may be news to you jimmac, but the world does not hang on your every word,

I've never claimed Clinton did anything specific to cause the recession in 2000

Originally Posted by involuntary_serf



At least you're believing what you're supposed to believe, so that's good.

Originally Posted by franksargent

My point exactly, Obama is a one term POTUS, the R's regain both houses and POTUS.

2012 - 1946 = 66 years (Boomers start to retire in droves)

Obama get's his health care reform bill this year, so that we now have to fund three rather large non-discretionary programs.

Unemployment reaches 30% in 2013 and stays there, or get's even worse, for the rest of the century.

Republicans pass massive tax cuts until the entire frderal tax burdens are no more.

Republicams would still be funding our two current wars but with the draft reinstated and much higher annual costs.

Democrats see this super duper shitstorm coming, and disband their party entirely.

Republicans start pulling the plugs on everyone (Granny, Grandpa, Mom, Pop, brother, and sister), death squads, and mass graves.

It's kind of like a hot potato, just gotta make it land in the Republicals lap at just the right time.

2012 will be that time. Remember, you heard it here first.

It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Find the quote. Until then, don't question my word.



False. Utterly false. Employment is a lagging indicator, so it comes back later. But it did come back, and quite strongly.





He pushed for and got rebates passed. He initiated the TARP program. Whether or not those were/are good things is another matter.

Obama continued the bailouts, but went the "takeover" route. He has spent trillions more. He's instituted almost no program that could possibly help the economy.



W, while not fiscally conservative enough for me, would not have done what Obama is doing. We can only speculate as to what the outcome would be.

As for outcomes, one cannot solely look at them. The ends don't justify the means in all cases, nor are the ends always linked to the means. According to your logic, all Obama policies must be good or neutral as long as the economy recovers. You'll ignore that the economy, being resilient, will likely come back to an extent in spite of Obama policies. If unemployment starts to tick down next year, you'll pronounce his policies a success. If it hits under 8%, you'll pronounce it a phenomenal success. Nevermind that with proper stimulation (tax cuts and spending cuts), the economy would likely recover much faster.

In other words, we know what works, and what doesn't. Tax cuts work. Massive government taxing and spending and control does not. Anyone who believes otherwise is utterly ignorant of recent history.

]Find the quote. Until then, don't question my word

Originally Posted by SDW2001

jimmac, you made a claim about something I supposedly posted. I asked you to prove it. Knowing your claim was B.S. to begin with, you then said it couldn't be proven and called me childish for ever having denied it.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You can't get around that.

As for the election, I'll use a jimmacism: We've been through that. And no, not everything can be explained by the words "cyclical" and "deregulation."

Originally Posted by screener

I remember SD's bullshit and remember he left the threads when it got to hot for him.

And he wonders why you and me say we aren't going to bother repeating ourselves as his Alzheimer's makes it pointless.

Originally Posted by screener

And when you call them on it, you get an infraction.
Probably have another one coming.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I can make big fonts as well!

Originally Posted by SDW2001


The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You can't get around that.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You know, it would help if you would stick to making one false claim at a time. I said--in this thread--, that the recession of 2001 started under Clinton. What I have not done is claim that Clinton did anything specific to cause that recession (though I have talked about taxes being high and how in my judgement that didn't help).

I have also stated that Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom of the late 1990s, in that he didn't have policies that specifically contributed.
It's amazing that you continue to press this point. You can't find evidence because I've never posted what you claim*





*Prediction: jimmac will now find a few posts of mine where the words "Clinton" and "Recession" appear in the same sentence, then present them as "proof" of his initial dubious assertion. By that time though---and this is where it really gets ironic---HIS recollection of his original assertion will have changed. He'll say that when he initially criticized me, he was referring to me saying the 2001 recession merely started under Clinton. Reading his post above, he's already laying the groundwork for this.

You can't find evidence because I've never posted what you claim*

Prediction: jimmac will now find a few posts of mine where the words "Clinton" and "Recession" appear in the same sentence,

He'll say that when he initially criticized me, he was referring to me saying the 2001 recession merely started under Clinton.

Yes Bush cut taxes and unemployment dragged on forever. And guess what? Before he was out of office here we are again!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Nice try. The war wasn't about finding weapons in some kind of scavenger hunt. It was about Iraq repeatedly violating UN resolutions. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the U.S. They had to prove they were complying, which they unquestionably didn't do.





On the contrary, I have consistently backed up my positions with data, whereas you rarely do. Now, I've certainly been wrong about a few things. For example, I thought until about 6-8 months before the election that McCain would be the next President. I also didn't think the Dems would take the Senate in 2006. It happens. You, on the other hand, seem to subscribe to the notion that a stopped clock is still right twice a day.



I don't recall posting that, but I might have. Either way, that doesn't mean he did anything specific to cause it (other than the aforementioned tax policy). That said, it was Bush's responsibility to help fix the problem, which he did.



I did, and they were. But events changed in the 6 months before the election. Obama found a way to knock out Hillary. McCain ran a crappy campaign. The economic crisis hit at the wrong time (for the GOP). That doesn't mean it wasn't true when I posted it.



Actually, I don't know. Are you now asking me to go find evidence of your claim for you? Yes, I think you are. Typical. Also, I don't recall posting "Nya Nya Nya" or anything like it. I merely denied having made a comment and asked you to prove otherwise if you disagreed.



I don't see how that matters, even if its true. Presidents are responsible for the policies they implement. Clinton did several things, specifically, that ended up affecting events during the Bush presidency. One of these was the nuclear deal with North Korea, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today. So yes, when someone offers an opinion on how terribly Bush handled the situation with North Korea, it's worth pointing out that Clinton had specific and identifiable policies that caused the problem.

This is why I have a problem with calling the current recession the "Bush Recession." Bush did not have policies or pursue policies that can be linked to recession. Yes, I know you'll scream "DEREGULATION, SDW!" and "WARS!", but those don't explain the recession.



You posted this:



Is that correct? Good.

The implication of your statement is that cutting taxes caused unemployment to drag on forever. Or, possibly you're not linking those two...I don't know. Either way, it's an absurd statement, because unemployment did NOT drag on forever, and wasn't very high at all at any time during his presidency. I think the max was somewhere just below 7% and the average was about 5% (I can't find the data at the moment, but that's close). That is better than the average of the 70s, 80s and 90s.

On the contrary, I have consistently backed up my positions with data, whereas you rarely do.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Nice try. The war wasn't about finding weapons in some kind of scavenger hunt. It was about Iraq repeatedly violating UN resolutions. The burden of proof was on Iraq, not the U.S. They had to prove they were complying, which they unquestionably didn't do.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Nice response. I've consistently backed up claims like "tax cuts create economic growth" and "tax cuts stimulate the economy and produce more revenue in the long term" with data from neutral sources. I've provided backing for claims on unemployment, election polling, issue polling and more. You, on the other hand, are the master of linking to opinion pieces on CNN Money.

Originally Posted by Aizmov

Bush been president for 8 years. It still hasn't been a year for Obama.

Bush is to blame, it all happened under his (un)watch.

Originally Posted by jimmac

And yet these guys don't seem to grasp ( or don't want to ) this simple equation.

They want to spin it into something that will make a republican president look less responsible for his own term in office that is 8 times what Obama's has been so far!

Originally Posted by dmz

It's irrelevant how long ding dong has been in office -- nothing has changed. We are speaking as if something has changed from the last 8 years. It just hasn't.


NOTHING


has changed (except for more abortions)


BHO had carte blanche when he came into office, but lo and behold, he put Goldman Sachs right back in charge of our monetary policy. This is a sick joke.













In fact, it's worse than a joke -- because about half the population still believes the pablum that is coming out of the WH. Meet the new boss...

Originally Posted by jimmac

Quite simply you're wrong. And I'd be willing to bet the same criteria would not apply if this was a conservative in office. People are responsible for the work they do and if they have a longer ( much longer ) time to acconplish their goals ( whatever they may be ) that is a factor and nothing ( no amount of spin I mean did Bush have the exact same conditions to work with that Obama does? ) will change the logic of the situation.

To everything spin, spin, spin. That's why there isn't a republican in the Whitehouse.

Originally Posted by SDW2001


OMFG. We weren't even discussing Bush. We were discussing O-B-A-M-A's accountability.
And you're talking about SPINNING?




__________________________________________________ _


<advertisement>

New! From the makers of the original Pflam Filter(TM) comes an amazing new device, designed to save you time when trying decipher jimmac's postings! It's the all-new, amazing Jimmac-in-ator!(TM). Simply submit up to 40 pages of a thread, and let it condense it down to this:



SDW: Obama is blaming Bush.

jimmac: You guyss' [sic] blamed Clinton for the recession.

SDW: I don't know who "you guys" are, but I didn't.

jimmac: yes, you did!

SDW: No, I said that it started under Clinton. He didn't do anything to directly cause it, other than having higher taxes at the time.

jimmac: I know you said it! I can't find it, but trust me...you did!

SDW: I disagree. I never said that. Find the quote.

jimmac: Jesus! We've been over this. It's all a cycle, something you know nothing about. Oh, and where are the WMD, SDW! See, no one's buying today. IStop being redicciulis. [sic].

SDW: Uh....

jimmac: You know that no one can find it, which is why you told me to find it. Me not being able to find it proves you said it! We all know Bush caused this recession anyway. Unemployment in my small and irrelevant college town shows what the whole country's like. After all, I'm older than you!

SDW: Uhh.....could you please explain what Bush did to cause the recession, specifically? What polices did so?

jimmac: We've been over this, jeez! Deregulation! Cycles!

SDW: I quit this B*tch.

</advertisement>

Originally Posted by dmz

Nonsense! If a conservative were in office the hypocrisy would only increase by an order of magnitude.

The cold, hard facts are that BHO is an establishment sellout (or if you want to be nice: "groupthink victim"). That's it. "Hope and Change" was a suckers' pickup line. Wall Street PWNS the treasury/policy/etc. BHO could have done the right thing and made the Banks eat their own dog food -- but he didn't. There is no excuse for the corporate welfare that has occurred -- it's beyond parody.





Now be a cooperative little bunny, and tell me that you'll do the right thing next time, stop being part of the problem, and vote for the third party of your choice.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I have stated facts.

1. Obama is blaming Bush:

• Deficit: We had to TRIPLE the deficit (that we complained about for 8 years) because we had to "rescue" the economy. We had no choice.
  
• Economy: 8 years of Bush-Cheney mismanagement turned America into a Great Depression-like wasteland. It's the worst economy in 60 years. We can't fix it right away.
  
• Afghan War: We inherited a mess from Bush. It's taken us 10 months to not make a decision on troop levels. Don't worry though...we have four options and we'll make a decision soon.

2. I never made the statement you "used." Until you can show otherwise, you're a liar.

I have stated facts

Originally Posted by jimmac

No. You've spun the facts. There's a difference.

And it's still Bush's fault.

Nah! The conservatives from " The New Red Majority " never say things like this!

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Put up or shut up. The archives go back for many years on these forums. Take the time and work it out, or just shut up about it. Sheesh!

Originally Posted by jimmac

My, my, my! If I were to tell one of you to " Shut up" you'd report me to the Mod!

Ok. Show me how you would search for a post that SDW made back in say oh.....2002.

You make it sound easy so put your money where your mouth is.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

You must have me confused with someone else.


At the top pf the page you will find a Search Link. Click that, look for the Advanced Search link at the bottom. Look under search options and Select Find Posts From: A year Ago or Older. Choose the Forum you want to search and your search terms. You can even search by user if you wish.

However if you really want to get tricky you can try using the Internet Wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...pleinsider.com and see if you can find anything there. Actually browse the old threads. Anything else you need me to do for you?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Wow. I really didn't know you could do that. However you realize if I find something he'll just deny it or try to wiggle out of it like he did about the subject of the Democrats melting down before the last election.

Thanks for the tip when I get time I'm sure I'll find something but as I said it won't do any good.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'll make sure to find all those old jimmac posts where the economy had improved and even jobs were being generated but at a rate you deemed to be to weak and thus this was bad economic progress.

Now of course we have the ol' "look we are only losing a quarter million jobs a month" standard of economic progress.

How low that bar has sunk for you compared to then. I suspec the D next to the name might have a little something to do with it. Either that or as our former president used to note, the "quiet bigotry of lowered expectations."

I'll make sure to find all those old jimmac posts where the economy had improved and even jobs were being generated but at a rate you deemed to be to weak and thus this was bad economic progress.