I believe some wacked out liberal had drawn that up. Can’t fault Obama for it.
I sort of believe this.
He may have that little devil and angel arguing on his shoulder, but at the end of the day, he’s the one that pulls the trigger. The blood is on his hands.
Interesting read.
I’m curious though. So if we can blame Clinton for the recession, then can’t Obama blame Bush for his inherited problem?
I don’t think the chart says we can totally blame Clinton for the recession. But that’s nothing to his credit. In reality, the “bond vigilantes” had done a good job keeping Clinton’s spending in check leading up to the tech blow off in 2000.
But the chart does show that Federal Receipts as % of private GDP spiked to all time highs in 2000, suggesting the tax policy was too aggressive. That, in combination with the Fed hiking the discount rate from 4 1/2% to 6% during that time, probably choked off the economy too abruptly, precipitating the Tech crash and recession.
I actually wasn’t blaming Clinton. This stuff is all new to me. I have my own reasons for hating Clinton.
Was just bringing that up, because Obama and his supporters all blame Bush. It got me curious if Bush ever blamed Clinton for inheriting a mess.
Bush can certainly blame Clinton foreign policies for 911. And if there had been no 911, there would have been no US invasion of Iraq.
Bush very well could have blamed Clinton. The rescinding of the Glass-Steagall act was almost assuredly behind the severity of the banking/CDO crisis, and without a doubt behind the failure of MF Global among others. (Of course the fact that John Corzine is a total idiot didn’t help MF Global)
And Bush most definitely would have had ammo to blame Clinton for 9/11. Clinton had numerous opportunities to take out Bin Laden prior to the fall of the twin towers. But we all know how distracting interns can be.
Every president can blame the administration, or even two or more that happened before them. Carter’s recession started with OPEC flexing their muscles in protest of the Yom Kippur war during Nixon’s presidency. And the Iran hostage crisis that happened later in his presidency started with actions clear back in 1953, with the CIA backed overthrow of the Iranian government in favor of installing the Shah. Why install a puppet regime? The marriage of our extremely faulty foreign policy, and lobbied corporate interests had arrived. Iran had nationalized their oil production, which had previously been managed by BP. Solution? Take over the leadership of the country, and give BP their business back.
And we wonder why they hated us.
Bottom line. Every presidency is defined by circumstances that happened long before they were voted in. I just want someone that knows that fact, and doesn’t whine about it. Reagan didn’t blame anyone. He had his faults, but he got the job done. Granted some decisions during his presidency factored into the banking crisis as well, but who could see that far into the future.
And that’s the ultimate point of this diatribe. Nobody can factor in all the possible events that lead up to a disaster. Just stop blame train, and take the bull by the horns when it inevitably happens. People don’t respect whiners.
Yeah, but what I’m asking is, did Bush come out and blame him? If he didn’t, then he is a better man than Obama.
Clinton is responsible for 100’s of thousands of innocent lives. I can’t understand why people look up to him.
Read more: 301 Moved Permanently
o him.
Bush uttered nary a word that I can remember. I think his daddy coached him well.
And Clinton… Don’t get me started…
That’s what I thought! It seemed Obama’s entire 2012 campaign strategy was to whine about Bush again. And he got elected anyway. The whole thing was diabolically surreal. I’m still in shock. But the thing is, there is plenty of historical data that proves tax and spend policies don’t work. Maybe in 2016 instead of debates, give the candidate 30 minutes in front of the camera with some power point slides explaining where we are and what he plans to do about it. Might actually win over some young people that way.
Different Subject: From WSJ today…“Mr. McConnell (R., Ky.) said bipartisan agreement on higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and slowing cost-of-living increases for Social Security could move both parties closer to a budget deal that averts the so-called fiscal cliff, the combination of spending cuts and tax increases that start in early January unless Washington acts.”
Ok, I’m a Republican, but the chained CPI thing gives me the creeps. Not sure I like the idea of the Fed doing to my social security what they’ve become such experts at doing with US treasury debt – paying back with depreciated dollars! Bottom line: Somebody has got to reign in the Fed and this QE infinity crap.
I’ve written off social security, as I’ll probably never see it anyway. Too bad I can’t get my money back 
Thats kind of open ended. Who do they view as the wealthy?
Couldn’t agree more.
I would just like to see a candidate for ANY position step up to the plate, and not say ONE WORD about how they are better than the other candidate because they don’t do blah blah blah. Or they are better than the other candidate, because the other candidate did blah blah blah, and they would NEVER do blah blah blah.
I want to see someone handle it by saying “Here’s how we’re going to move ahead.” And when the other candidate gets ugly, instead of responding in kind, take the high road, and say that there’s no time to care about personal attacks. The time is better spent coming up with solutions that solve things. In this last election process, Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman were the two that came closest to that ideal. They didn’t get personal if they disagreed, they just stated why they disagreed, and didn’t profess superiority because they DID disagree. (See Santorum)
And honestly, I just wish it didn’t come down to just the two parties for choices. Two party politics is slowly choking the life out of this nation.
My money says it will be one dollar above the annual salary of a congressman…
Yes, it’s not unusual for democracies across the globe to have coalition governments where no single party has a majority. A multi-party system would go a long way in forcing compromise in this country, which is what we really need right now.
Politics seems to be a lot like Hollywood lol. Why do we have a 2 party dictatorship? I always thought it was money related. The other parties can’t raise enough to campaign effectively. That’s what I thought anyway.
Meet Liz Fowler: Architect of ObamaCare Jumps Ship To Johnson & Johnson | ZeroHedge
Nice… Good job protecting the “less fortunate” :53:
I read that earlier.
Nothing like letting the foxes guard the henhouse.
And… In further infuriating wastefulness, you won’t see this on the evening news…
People who earn their wealth are evil and greedy. People that live lavish lifestyles with other people’s money are noble.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Not sure if this is true or not:
Probably. What I don’t like about that is they don’t say what more left leaning news like msnbc viewers scored. They just lump them in with other, which is vast.
Then you see articles like this
New Study Suggests Watching Reality TV Like ‘Jersey Shore’ Might Make You Dumber
I know its not a large enough pool, but everyone I know that watches those types of shows are liberal.