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

[auditor0007]

I think it very funny the way the dems do this. Rightwinger is very funny with this. The price goes up, it is the evil republicans. The price goes down, it it because the marvelous wonderful 0bama standing up for the little guy®©.

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

 

[bedowin62]

"THE Great Recession didnt happen in a vacuum........'

yea that's rich; the same idiot who said that blames bush and his policies for the global recession; not the ACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD of Dems who voted FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bush's policies REPEATEDLY, or anything else going on on the planet

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bodecea]

"THE Great Recession didnt happen in a vacuum........'

yea that's rich; the same idiot who said that blames bush and his policies for the global recession; not the ACTUAL HISTORICAL RECORD of Dems who voted FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bush's policies REPEATEDLY, or anything else going on on the planet

libs are losers who lie to themselves

So, I was right. Bush was irrelevant.

 

[bedowin62]

I think it very funny the way the dems do this. Rightwinger is very funny with this. The price goes up, it is the evil republicans. The price goes down, it it because the marvelous wonderful 0bama standing up for the little guy®©.

You obviously aren't smart enough to understand the point he is making, as it has been conservatives who constantly told us how bad Obama was because of high gas prices while comparing the price of gas as Bush left office being lower, and not even taking into to account the reason the price was temporarily low under Bush, due to the crashing economy. He's poking fun at you guys, just like I do.

the reason gas was low at the end of the bush years is the same reason it has fallen very recently NOW; the world economy is slowing


idiots and hypocrites

 

[DarkFury]

I'm curious, Nuhuh...did you want to take a crack at explaining what Barack Obama's plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs has been since Larry Summers and Christina Romer jumped ship? Did you even want to pretend he's had one?

Whatever Obama has done concerning the economy he has done it alone without any advice or consent from either house of congress. That should tell you a lot.

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

 

[bedowin62]

you would have to be on the correct side of something to "poke fun" at people idiot

the ACTUAL RECORD shows the Donkey Party voted for EVERY ONE OF BUSH'S POLICIES no matter what their numbers in congress were, majority of minority; and continued nearly every one of them LONG AFTER BUSH WAS GONE, even many to THIS DAY

 

[nuhuh]

I firmly believe you are entitled to your own view of things, it's just unfortunate that historians have already ranked Obama at #18 on presidential rankings and he is presumed to overtake Reagan just as soon as the impacts of gay marriage, immigration, Iranian nuclear deal and climate change are weighed.

You're so impressed by that rating, Nuhuh! What's unfortunate is that the ranking that a group of historians give doesn't change the fact that Obama has still led the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression and that his signature accomplishment...the Affordable Care Act...is one of the most badly written pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress and simply won't work as constituted. As for the Iranian nuclear deal being a positive for Barry? You have much more faith in the Iranian mullahs than I do. I think they played Obama and Kerry like a fiddle.

Like I said, I can respect your opinion but I respect the opinion of historians more.

What you're really saying is that you have no way to dispute what I've just pointed out...so you're going to concentrate on a "popularity contest" among academics that are predominantly liberals. Quite frankly...given Obama's record with the economy...if I were one of his supporters, then I would probably do the same thing!

I'm just saying I don't agree with your conclusions and it is just another way to look at the problem. Historians don't take into account the "politics" of the situation and arrive at their conclusions without the weight of partisan politics.

Now that is amusing, Nuhuh! You for some reason think that historians are unbiased...a notion which astounds me. As someone who graduated with a degree in History I can tell you that the first thing I was taught as a student of history is when reading an account on anything, was to pay careful attention to WHO was authoring that account and what their biases were towards the subject being discussed might be.
You can read a historic account of World War II in Soviet textbooks that describe an entirely different conflict than a textbook written by a Western historian. You literally wouldn't know it was the same war.

I didn't say that. All knowledge is shaded by where you are situated within a society. Most historians at least the ones who might claim they are unbiased, try to use original sourcing which will reflect on the original biases used to describe that particular history. You can also arrive at your own conclusions by reading opposing literature in an attempt to flesh out truth.

 

[bedowin62]

BUSH'S AVERAGE gas price was lower than obama's; just like his average unemployment rate was much lower. so those final years dont mean anything idiot. because if obama's unemployment rate RIGHT NOW for example, is where bush's AVERAGE OF 8 YEARS IS AT; and unemployment spiked at the end of the bush years; then obviously unemployment was LOWER THAN 5.2% for much of the Bush years

 

[bedowin62]

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[nuhuh]

I'm curious, Nuhuh...did you want to take a crack at explaining what Barack Obama's plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs has been since Larry Summers and Christina Romer jumped ship? Did you even want to pretend he's had one?

Whatever Obama has done concerning the economy he has done it alone without any advice or consent from either house of congress. That should tell you a lot.

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

No again, ALL presidents weren't as foolish as Reagan who brought us most of the debt or Bush who packed on two wars without so much as proposing savings bonds.

 

[Oldstyle]

Just to refresh...memory, Barack Obama came into office saying that he had a plan to fix the economy and would hit the ground running.

Then he proceeded to put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he pursued ObamaCare.

As a result...he's led the worst recovery from a recession since FDR and the Great Depression.

So the blame for the slow recovery has to do with Obamacare? If the recovery was tackled first things would have gone much better? Hmm...events all over the world would appear to call this logic into question

But WHAT exactly was the first thing Obama did when entering office, even before entering office?

Hmm...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[3]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

You appear to have fallen into the Rush-Alternative-World-View meme, where on Feb/Mar 2009, Rush gave a speech declaring 'we need to take our country back' -- all before President Obama changed a single thing

It's okay, recent brain studies can account for how you came to your faulty conclusions and stick with them

With all due respect, Dante...Barry continued W's TARP program because that was working! If your biggest success story of the Obama Administration on the economy is that they kept doing what Bush started...that's not much of an endorsement...know what I'm saying?

Who were President Obama's economic advisers when he entered office and what did they suggest and why? I bet they were not all that different in thinking and actions then Bush's were at that time. They were all Wall Street people.

trying to split Bush and Obama apart on the early interventions on the economic recovery is an ideological masturbation game

When Obama entered office it was Larry Summers and Kristina Romer that were heading up his team. They both ran back to tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley as soon as the Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs. Since then there really hasn't been anyone driving plans to stimulate the economy. We had calls for a "redo" of the Obama Stimulus that even Democrats didn't want to vote for...and vague calls for "infrastructure spending". That's it. And as the years went by talk about the economy became less and less of a focus for this Administration.

 

[bedowin62]

typical left-wing losers mind-phuking themselves.

using bush's last two years to make your argument is like saying Michael Jordan doesnt belong in the Hall of Fame because his stats in his last years were way below his average

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious, Nuhuh...did you want to take a crack at explaining what Barack Obama's plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs has been since Larry Summers and Christina Romer jumped ship? Did you even want to pretend he's had one?

Whatever Obama has done concerning the economy he has done it alone without any advice or consent from either house of congress. That should tell you a lot.

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

No again, ALL presidents weren't as foolish as Reagan who brought us most of the debt or Bush who packed on two wars without so much as proposing savings bonds.

Compared to Obama & Bush...Reagan added so little debt that it's almost laughable that you now claim that he's responsible for most of the debt!

 

[bedowin62]

I'm curious, Nuhuh...did you want to take a crack at explaining what Barack Obama's plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs has been since Larry Summers and Christina Romer jumped ship? Did you even want to pretend he's had one?

Whatever Obama has done concerning the economy he has done it alone without any advice or consent from either house of congress. That should tell you a lot.

So YOU accept the fault for the rise in food stamp numbers as his fault? And you accept the 18 trillion dollar debt as his fault? Oh AND the last government shut down as his fault?

Good to hear. You may not be as stupid as your posting suggests.

$18 Trillion dollar debt is Obama's fault? Perhaps you're short of memory these days because $10.6 Trillion of that debt belongs to George Bush.

So your beat argument is Obozo only owns 45% of the debt made in just seven years compare to ALL the presidents before him?

AND you evaded his record number of drone kills. And you evaded the record rise in food stamps. And you "forgot" the TWO credit downgrades? Only TWO in the ENTIRE history of the United States.

No again, ALL presidents weren't as foolish as Reagan who brought us most of the debt or Bush who packed on two wars without so much as proposing savings bonds.

again idiot; democrats held the power of the purse strings in the Reagan years with their EIGHT-YEAR HOUSE MAJORITY.

if the record showed THEY EVEN TRIED to hold down debt that would be one thing; but the ACTUAL RECORD SHOWS so many Democrats voted FOR Reaga's policies A WHOLE NEW TERM WAS INVENTED TO REFER TO THEM, the Reagan Democrats

libs are losers who lie TO THEMSELVES

 

[bedowin62]

Democrats also voted FOR bush's budgets; even one year appropriating more for the military than bush asked for


DO YOU SEE A PATTERN/

for more than 30 years left-wing losers have been voting FOR things then trying to re-write history when they cry like babies about the things they voted FOR.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're so impressed by that rating, Nuhuh! What's unfortunate is that the ranking that a group of historians give doesn't change the fact that Obama has still led the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression and that his signature accomplishment...the Affordable Care Act...is one of the most badly written pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress and simply won't work as constituted. As for the Iranian nuclear deal being a positive for Barry? You have much more faith in the Iranian mullahs than I do. I think they played Obama and Kerry like a fiddle.

Like I said, I can respect your opinion but I respect the opinion of historians more.

What you're really saying is that you have no way to dispute what I've just pointed out...so you're going to concentrate on a "popularity contest" among academics that are predominantly liberals. Quite frankly...given Obama's record with the economy...if I were one of his supporters, then I would probably do the same thing!

I'm just saying I don't agree with your conclusions and it is just another way to look at the problem. Historians don't take into account the "politics" of the situation and arrive at their conclusions without the weight of partisan politics.

Now that is amusing, Nuhuh! You for some reason think that historians are unbiased...a notion which astounds me. As someone who graduated with a degree in History I can tell you that the first thing I was taught as a student of history is when reading an account on anything, was to pay careful attention to WHO was authoring that account and what their biases were towards the subject being discussed might be.
You can read a historic account of World War II in Soviet textbooks that describe an entirely different conflict than a textbook written by a Western historian. You literally wouldn't know it was the same war.

I didn't say that. All knowledge is shaded by where you are situated within a society. Most historians at least the ones who might claim they are unbiased, try to use original sourcing which will reflect on the original biases used to describe that particular history. You can also arrive at your own conclusions by reading opposing literature in an attempt to flesh out truth.

I don't think most historians would even bother to waste their time arguing that they were unbiased...most are intelligent enough to know that everyone has biases that affect their viewpoint. Very few of them would ever claim that their views aren't in some way "weighted" by their own politics.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm quite confident that I put a gun to either of your heads right now and told you to name Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisers...that neither of you would have the faintest idea who they were. That's not an indictment of you...it simply points out that on the number one issue that Americans are concerned about...this President has been a no-show for years now! He simply doesn't know what to do to grow an economy or create real jobs.

I actually had a client .. a guy named Gene Sperling ... during the mid 1980s in NYC. He worked on Wall Street. I've followed his career.

take a hike with your pseudo-superior knowledge

I know enough about Gene Sperling to know that he's no longer one of the President's Chief Economic Advisers and hasn't been for about a year now...a fact that you seem unaware of. Oh, I'm sorry...was that me showing off my "pseudo-superior knowledge"?

Jesus Christ you're a doltish nitwit

 

[bedowin62]

Like I said, I can respect your opinion but I respect the opinion of historians more.

What you're really saying is that you have no way to dispute what I've just pointed out...so you're going to concentrate on a "popularity contest" among academics that are predominantly liberals. Quite frankly...given Obama's record with the economy...if I were one of his supporters, then I would probably do the same thing!

I'm just saying I don't agree with your conclusions and it is just another way to look at the problem. Historians don't take into account the "politics" of the situation and arrive at their conclusions without the weight of partisan politics.

Now that is amusing, Nuhuh! You for some reason think that historians are unbiased...a notion which astounds me. As someone who graduated with a degree in History I can tell you that the first thing I was taught as a student of history is when reading an account on anything, was to pay careful attention to WHO was authoring that account and what their biases were towards the subject being discussed might be.
You can read a historic account of World War II in Soviet textbooks that describe an entirely different conflict than a textbook written by a Western historian. You literally wouldn't know it was the same war.

I didn't say that. All knowledge is shaded by where you are situated within a society. Most historians at least the ones who might claim they are unbiased, try to use original sourcing which will reflect on the original biases used to describe that particular history. You can also arrive at your own conclusions by reading opposing literature in an attempt to flesh out truth.

I don't think most historians would even bother to waste their time arguing that they were unbiased...most are intelligent enough to know that everyone has biases that affect their viewpoint. Very few of them would ever claim that their views aren't in some way "weighted" by their own politics.

absolutely!! and of course this is for both sides. but funny it DOES seem to be mainly the Left insisting educated people taking their point of view are unbiased in any way. they do this from the above-mentioned historical view of obama, laughable as that is for somebody still in office; to the views of scientists on global warming from the 99% of countries EXEMPT FROM ANY CARBON-REDUCTION STANDARDS

 

[bedowin62]

I'm quite confident that I put a gun to either of your heads right now and told you to name Barack Obama's Chief Economic Advisers...that neither of you would have the faintest idea who they were. That's not an indictment of you...it simply points out that on the number one issue that Americans are concerned about...this President has been a no-show for years now! He simply doesn't know what to do to grow an economy or create real jobs.

I actually had a client .. a guy named Gene Sperling ... during the mid 1980s in NYC. He worked on Wall Street. I've followed his career.

take a hike with your pseudo-superior knowledge

I know enough about Gene Sperling to know that he's no longer one of the President's Chief Economic Advisers and hasn't been for about a year now...a fact that you seem unaware of. Oh, I'm sorry...was that me showing off my "pseudo-superior knowledge"?

Jesus Christ you're a doltish nitwit

he/she is making a fool of you; actually helping you make a fool of yourself

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Just to refresh...memory, Barack Obama came into office saying that he had a plan to fix the economy and would hit the ground running.

Then he proceeded to put the economy and jobs on a back burner while he pursued ObamaCare.

As a result...he's led the worst recovery from a recession since FDR and the Great Depression.

So the blame for the slow recovery has to do with Obamacare? If the recovery was tackled first things would have gone much better? Hmm...events all over the world would appear to call this logic into question

But WHAT exactly was the first thing Obama did when entering office, even before entering office?

Hmm...

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.​

The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1] This is significantly less than the government's cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[2] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, it was reported in April 2010 that those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[2] On December 19, 2014 the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. TARP revenue has totaled $441.7 billion on $426.4 billion invested.[3]

Troubled Asset Relief Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

You appear to have fallen into the Rush-Alternative-World-View meme, where on Feb/Mar 2009, Rush gave a speech declaring 'we need to take our country back' -- all before President Obama changed a single thing

It's okay, recent brain studies can account for how you came to your faulty conclusions and stick with them

With all due respect, Dante...Barry continued W's TARP program because that was working! If your biggest success story of the Obama Administration on the economy is that they kept doing what Bush started...that's not much of an endorsement...know what I'm saying?

Who were President Obama's economic advisers when he entered office and what did they suggest and why? I bet they were not all that different in thinking and actions then Bush's were at that time. They were all Wall Street people.

trying to split Bush and Obama apart on the early interventions on the economic recovery is an ideological masturbation game

When Obama entered office it was Larry Summers and Kristina Romer that were heading up his team. They both ran back to tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley as soon as the Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs. Since then there really hasn't been anyone driving plans to stimulate the economy. We had calls for a "redo" of the Obama Stimulus that even Democrats didn't want to vote for...and vague calls for "infrastructure spending". That's it. And as the years went by talk about the economy became less and less of a focus for this Administration.

boring ideological arguments like yours do not even register well