Can't have it both ways; if Bush still to blame then obama is just irrelevant

[Procrustes Stretched]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

Everything good that happened under Clinton was credited to Gingrich yet none of Reagan's successes were credited to Tip O'Neil and the Democrats.

9/11 - which happened under Bush - was, according to your side, Clinton's fault.

The housing crisis - which happened under Bush - was apparently Carter's fault (specifically the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977).

The financial meltdown - which happened under Bush - was apparently Clinton's fault.

(Nothing is Bush's fault, especially stuff that happened on his watch)

Your president failed to protect the eastern seaboard despite being warned in the infamous Aug 2011 memo. 3,000 American died. Hillary Clinton got blamed for four deaths in Benghazi (while Ronald Reagan was responsible for 241 deaths in Lebanon - and you blame him for nothing).

Your side never takes accountability for bad things that happen when they control Washington, and your side never gives the Democrats any credit for good things that happen (either when they control the White House or congress).

You've been whining about Jimmy Carter for 30 fucking years...

And you're pissed because everyone - including your leading presidential nominee - is blaming Bush for a failed war and the unprecedented destruction of the housing and financial markets.
You are insane.

clinton LET IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 9-11 hijackers. we know this for a FACT. this was AFTER THEY TRIED TO TAKE DOWN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN CLINTON'S FIRST YEAR. why SHOULDNT clinton be blamed?

Richard Clark

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe things are a bit more complex than that which is stated in the OP. Bush screwed up the handling of the Mid-East so royally that it will take a miracle to rectify that situation any time soon, no matter which party it falls to. In regards to the domestic situations, I have far more hope of a quicker fix in terms of correcting the screwed up mess for which Obama is responsible. Surely others more capable than me can break things down even further with historical perspective extending beyond the last two administrations.

I'm not sure Ford helped Jimmy too much (beyond giving America a true hero and decent man after Nixon) but Jimmah actually hired Volker and Volker had already raised rates to 13.5% before Reagan got elected, and while the recession was to come, inflation began falling in the THIRD month of Reagan's FIRST year in office. If Reagan had had to endure over a year of rising rates and rising inflation, and then the recession in his third year, he'd have been a one termer.

HW lost his party because he raised taxes. Greenspan said that or he'd raise rates on inflation fears. The Savings and Loan debacle increased spending (which btw was mostly paid back later on when the bank assets were resold, so probably Greenspan blew that call too, but that's another story). But the low, for that time, interest rate coupled with modest growth and no inflation allowed the Clinton years' expansion.

Then, the balanced budget of Clinton gave W an excuse to supply side cut taxes (like he needed an excuse for that or another jack with a lonestar back), and the result was increased spending giving him growth through his term until ... the housing bubble that arose from everybody having extra cash burst.

And Obama got 8 years of deleveraging. LOL Not that he's great shakes, but nobody else is doing that well either in the developed world.

That's why Reagan reappointed Volker in 1983?

Volker was responsible for Reagan's reelection

you imbecile!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge...Thomas Sowell on the other hand is a brilliant one. I had a class with him at Amherst College and learned an incredible amount.

Davis Stockman was Reagan's Budget Director

look up what that entails

Is Stockman an economist? He majored in history and then went to Seminary school before going into politics. Once he got canned by Reagan he went into business and managed to take several investment businesses into bankruptcy...performing so badly as a CEO that he was indicted for securities fraud.

Reagan wasn't an economist and he was the last one of his circle to come around to supply side.

Stockman? A brilliants young conservative who Reagan put in charge of his budget and more. Of all the Americans at that time Reagan chose Stockman

Political career

He served as special assistant to United States Representative and 1980 U.S. presidential candidate John Anderson of Illinois, 1970–1972, and was executive director, United States House of Representatives Republican Conference, 1972–1975.


Congress

Stockman was elected to the United States House of Representatives for the 95th Congress and was reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 21, 1981, to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


Office of Management and Budget

Stockman became one of the most controversial OMB directors ever, which lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted in the passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped would be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state". He thus gained a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, Stockman became well known to the public during the contentious political wrangling concerning the role of the federal government in American society.


Stockman's influence within the Reagan Administration was negatively affected after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the infamous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[7] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider.


Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[7] Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.[7]


After "being taken to the woodshed by the president" due to his candor with Atlantic Monthly's William Greider, Stockman became concerned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending to offset large tax decreases, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Show me a business model where labor, suppliers, and the tax man only get paid after the business owner does.

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

Too many to count

Simple question, Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used?

I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

I'm not confused about anything. You on the other hand confuse a derogatory term used by liberals to denigrate Supply Side economics with an actual economic model...and then completely FAIL when asked to show where "trickle down" is employed!

again,
I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

i meant to say most of the time on these message boards you cant get a left-wing loser that is ranting about Reagan and the Reagan years to even admit there is a such thing as the Reagan Democrats, and the ACTUAL, FACTUAL history of their voting for his policies in Congress

IRONIC; because the same left-wing losers here ranting about the BUSH YEARS also refuse to admit Democrats voted for virtually all of the Bush/Republican policies they call so disastrous, and CONTINUED NEARLY ALL OF THEM LONG AFTER BUSH WAS GONE.


their PATHETIC excuses are something along the lines of how a SMALLER NUMBER of right-wingers the Left INSISTS they are superior to in every way "obstructed" a larger force of the best and brightest Progressive minds assembled by their community organizer and in Congress

YOU SEE THE PATTERN?

for THIRTY YEARS the Left has been trying to RE-WRITE HISTORY.

Reagan Democrats in the Congress?

Democrats in Congress during the years of Bush? Are you calling them Bush democrats, because if you are, Newt Gingrich was a Clinton Republican.

Democrats who VOTED for Reagan in elections and who changed registration and became Republicans are the Reagan Democrats. Not the Democrats in the Congress

Why are you allowed to go online and post this nonsense?

 

[Oldstyle]

David Stockman isn't even an economist to the best of my knowledge...Thomas Sowell on the other hand is a brilliant one. I had a class with him at Amherst College and learned an incredible amount.

Davis Stockman was Reagan's Budget Director

look up what that entails

Is Stockman an economist? He majored in history and then went to Seminary school before going into politics. Once he got canned by Reagan he went into business and managed to take several investment businesses into bankruptcy...performing so badly as a CEO that he was indicted for securities fraud.

Reagan wasn't an economist and he was the last one of his circle to come around to supply side.

Stockman? A brilliants young conservative who Reagan put in charge of his budget and more. Of all the Americans at that time Reagan chose Stockman

Political career

He served as special assistant to United States Representative and 1980 U.S. presidential candidate John Anderson of Illinois, 1970–1972, and was executive director, United States House of Representatives Republican Conference, 1972–1975.


Congress

Stockman was elected to the United States House of Representatives for the 95th Congress and was reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 21, 1981, to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


Office of Management and Budget

Stockman became one of the most controversial OMB directors ever, which lasted until his resignation in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted in the passage of the "Reagan Budget" (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped would be a serious curtailment of the "welfare state". He thus gained a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O'Neill's Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker's Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, Stockman became well known to the public during the contentious political wrangling concerning the role of the federal government in American society.


Stockman's influence within the Reagan Administration was negatively affected after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the infamous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[7] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider.


Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[7] Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.[7]


After "being taken to the woodshed by the president" due to his candor with Atlantic Monthly's William Greider, Stockman became concerned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending to offset large tax decreases, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt.

David Stockman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

As you noted...Reagan put Stockman in charge of his budget...which is not the same thing as putting him in charge of the economy...nor did Reagan take his economic cues from him. Laffer is the economist that Reagan based his economic theory on...not Stockman.

 

[Oldstyle]

Show me a business model where labor, suppliers, and the tax man only get paid after the business owner does.

How many straw men does it take to put out a fire at a Tea Party?

Too many to count

Simple question, Dante...show me a business model where trickle down economics is used?

I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

I'm not confused about anything. You on the other hand confuse a derogatory term used by liberals to denigrate Supply Side economics with an actual economic model...and then completely FAIL when asked to show where "trickle down" is employed!

again,
I bet you consider weather reporters climate change scientists

you confuse national economic policies and economic models and theories with business plans?

Again you duck the question.

It's a simple concept, Dante...show us where "trickle down" theory exists anywhere but in the minds of liberals trying to denigrate Supply Side economics?

What's ironic is probably the closest thing to "trickle down" theory is when the Government takes citizen's assets and then redistributes those assets back to citizens...after wasting a huge amount through inefficiency. We give them a whole bunch of money and they give us back a lot less money. THAT is trickle down.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Booshies wrecked the world in every possible way, but it's the GOP's 7 years of mindless obstruction that have been the problem lately. Reaganism should have been ended 5 years ago at the least. Now it's just greedy idiocy.

 

[Oldstyle]

OP- Booshies wrecked the world in every possible way, but it's the GOP's 7 years of mindless obstruction that have been the problem lately. Reaganism should have been ended 5 years ago at the least. Now it's just greedy idiocy.

So when the GOP have the White House...they're responsible...

But when the Democrats have the White House...the GOP is still responsible?

Posts like that one Franco are why you're a legend in your own mind!

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Booshies wrecked the world in every possible way, but it's the GOP's 7 years of mindless obstruction that have been the problem lately. Reaganism should have been ended 5 years ago at the least. Now it's just greedy idiocy.

So when the GOP have the White House...they're responsible...

But when the Democrats have the White House...the GOP is still responsible?

Posts like that one Franco are why you're a legend in your own mind!

Dems mainly allow Pubs in WH to do their program, Pubs mindlessly obstruct Dems in WH. DUH

 

[francoHFW]

At least no giant corrupt Pub economic bubble or STUPID wars with Dem WH. Just allow our advantaged economy to do its thing. Would do much better with gov't investment though- infrastructure and training for 3-4 MILLION tech jobs going begging. And don't forget the 4 years of GOP gov't shutdowns/threats that stalled the recovery for NO reason.

 

[my2¢]

Concerning Paul Volcker, I recall looking to buy my first house just after Reagan took office but the 21% home interest rates held me back. Being a COBOL programmer I never lacked for a job and so it was easy for me to stomach the continuing medicine Volcker had us on to induce a recession and curb inflation . By '83 happy days were here again, inflation had finally been tamed and I bought a home. When I hear "Reagan Recession" I just count myself fortunate to have been in position where I could take it as non-political.

 

[Oldstyle]

Right...because as we all know...the Democrats just LOVED W!

That Nancy Pelosi just rubber stamped whatever W wanted! Yup...that's what happened! (eye-roll) I'm curious, Franco...do YOU even believe that nonsense?

 

[Oldstyle]

At least no giant corrupt Pub economic bubble or STUPID wars with Dem WH. Just allow our advantaged economy to do its thing. Would do much better with gov't investment though- infrastructure and training for 3-4 MILLION tech jobs going begging. And don't forget the 4 years of GOP gov't shutdowns/threats that stalled the recovery for NO reason.

Ah, yes...and it's the GOP economic bubble that burst...and the GOP government shutdowns! Gosh it must be amazing to be able to look at the world around you with those blinders on, Franco. No annoying shades of gray anywhere when it comes to politics and you! Heck no...it's GOP bad...Democrats good! Then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously here.

 

[Oldstyle]

The world to you comes down to "Pub Dupe". That's it...that's your entire take on all things political.

 

[HenryBHough]

America's Kenyan Emperor is about as irrelevant as was
Joseph Stalin at a similar point in his career.

 

[francoHFW]

Right...because as we all know...the Democrats just LOVED W!

That Nancy Pelosi just rubber stamped whatever W wanted! Yup...that's what happened! (eye-roll) I'm curious, Franco...do YOU even believe that nonsense?

They got their tax cut for the rich. That's all the swine wanted. Their Wall St. regulators and bs jingoistic tidal wave of war propaganda did the rest.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Can't have it both ways; if Bush still to blame then obama is just irrelevant

Great observation... which has provided yet ANOTHER demonstration of the feckless nature of the Ideological Left.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Concerning Paul Volcker, I recall looking to buy my first house just after Reagan took office but the 21% home interest rates held me back. Being a COBOL programmer I never lacked for a job and so it was easy for me to stomach the continuing medicine Volcker had us on to induce a recession and curb inflation . By '83 happy days were here again, inflation had finally been tamed and I bought a home. When I hear "Reagan Recession" I just count myself fortunate to have been in position where I could take it as non-political.

Yeah our First house was purchased in 83... I remember the Realtor chronically using the term "Creative Financing". We signed at an unprecedentedly low, LOW 30 year fixed Rate of 13.5%.

This down from the 26% that we were told was the best anyone could do, in 1981 when we first started looking go buy.

A few years later we refinanced for 7.95%. Thanks to "Reganomics" overriding the catastrophic effect of Socialist Policy established by Jimma Cawtuh... who was THE WORST PRESIDENT in US History, until 1993 when Clinton took office; who took over that slot... until 2009 when the Brown Clown slithered into position.

There's little chance that the US will survive the subversion that the Left has planted through the sitting of a Muslim Chief Executive in the midst of the War with Islam.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

In obama year seven if everything going badly is still Bush's fault then obama is simply a non-factor and IRRELEVANT.
The Left keeps insisting on having it both ways, trying to take credit for the good and blaming the bad on others, in a very childish manner.
i guess i cant blame the Left though; if i were them and looking at the world in flames in places far removed from Iraq, like Africa and the Ukraine, and all the things screwed up at home, like the 13 MILLION MORE on food stamps then there were when Bush was President; i wouldnt be open to discussing all that PROGRESSIVE FAILURE either.

As long as the power brokers get there's, the stats don't matter.