Bush: I screwed you all. But thanks for blaming it on the black guy

[Matt1970]

Are those supposed to be counters? You can't place any blame for the housing bubble and lack of any action on him? He's not the only one, but he was Capitan of the ship when it went aground. His party was solidly behind deregulation which permitted the over leveraging oinn the first place.

Then you post up "cheap shots" with the debt, but the largest driver of the debt was the economic cluster f kicked off under Bush.

Bush 2x the debt. Surplus to deficit. Gas went from ~$1.20 to over $4.00 before the meltdown, Dow was a net loss, net higher unemployment, net loss in wages & wealth,etc etc.

Name one indicator that was overall a positive under Bush? I can make a bunch for Obama. It ain't all roses, but he'll leave the place better than he found it

To be fair it was a fake surplus (the debt still climbed in the surplus years) and revenues started to drop when the bubble burst on October 2000.

 

[fskimospy]

The war
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/24/after_vowing_to_end_combat_mission

The debt
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/106-obama-has-more-doubled-marketable-us-debt

The bubble
As far as financial bubble goes, how can you blame bush for the actions of others? If anything you should be pointing the finger at people like Barney Frank. I dont think Bush was innocent, but his impact was not as large as most of the other parties involved.

Income inequality
I dont even need to counter this one, both Bush and Obama have done everything in their power to erode the middle class, and help out big business.

Those are counters.

I dont want to give the wrong impression, I do not like bush either. But pretending all of our problems come exclusively from him is foolish. Obama is horrible, in every way, and it does nothing to keep pointing the finger at the guy no longer able to fix whatever problems we currently face.

Those are bad counters.

The war: you are off by a few hundred thousand deaths, the destabilization of a region, a few trillion dollars, and the fact that continuing your predecessor's war and starting a whole new one for no good reason aren't the same thing. That's a pretty bad counterpoint.

The debt: you didn't read what I wrote. Running up the debt during low unemployment and a growing economy is bad. Running up the debt in a depression is good. What I fault Obama for here is not running up the debt enough. We needed less debt in the mid 2000's so we could run up more debt in the late 2000s and beyond.

The bubble: other people also failing to fix it does not absolve Bush of his responsibility. As both the president and the boss of the relevant regulatory agencies Bush had by far the most power to head off the housing bubble and police the rampant fraud that was taking place. He did neither. That's a massive failure by any standard.

Income inequality: this is factually incorrect.. Tax rates for the wealthy plummeted under Bush and they have increased significantly under Obama. Considering the squealing by the rich about "class warfare" and socialism, it appears they don't share your opinion of Obama.

I don't care whether or not you like or hate Bush or Obama. I personally hate the "they are both the same" argument though as it absolves Bush of accountability for his disastrous presidency. He was easily the worst president of the modern era, and one that conservatives enthusiastically supported for the majority of his tenure. There is no flushing that down the memory hole. (I always find it funny that it's so hard to find a conservative who admits voting for Bush despite Bush winning the conservative vote overwhmingly according to exit polls)

 

[bshole]

Actually if you took the time to read my post, I explicitly stated that bush was NOT innocent, but wutevs, no need to read what I wrote I guess............

As far as surplus to deficit, you should check your facts. We had a budget surplus, but we still had a national debt. We still owed trillions of dollars, but our annual budget had a surplus, which is great, but not THAT great.

Also, I love how people start off by saying "Blah blah blah how can you blame only one person blah blah blah, yet you put the majority of our debt on the actions of a single man almost a decade ago.

I dont know of anything that was a positive for bush, I was fairly young when he was in office, but I also do not know anything that was a positive for Obama either.

Invading Iraq was the single greatest foreign affairs disaster in American history. Given the deceitful methods Bush used to get America involved in it, I am still shocked that he has not been indicted for a crime of some sort. One wonders if the thing that Bush broke is beyond repair. It certainly appears so at present. The Iraq war is beyond forgivable, all of Obama's failures COMBINED pale in comparison.

 

[Blanky]

No, we really didn't, but I don't expect you to see it any other way. Trying to say Obama was better than Bush is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Until Obama gets the US into another big war like Iraq I'd say that alone keeps him ahead of Bush. Bush's legacy was Iraq, Obama's was ACA, which although not great at the very least got rid of prexisting condition exemption. Bush should have been at the very least impeached, if not actually imprisoned for getting the US embroiled in Iraq, but some people say Obama is worse?

 

[Jhhnn]

To be fair it was a fake surplus (the debt still climbed in the surplus years) and revenues started to drop when the bubble burst on October 2000.

Hogwash.

"Climbing" is a suitably vague & partisan description. Debt grew very, very slowly from 1997- 2002, then the rate of increase exploded during the Repub bubble of the Bush years.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Debt had previously quadrupled during the RR/GHWB years, but I'm sure that facts will have no impact on the formulation of your opinion, such as it is.

 

[frowertr]

Lol at Liberals still blaming Bush after their "chosen one" hasn't done shit in 6 years.

 

[Blanky]

Invading Iraq was the single greatest foreign affairs disaster in American history. Given the deceitful methods Bush used to get America involved in it, I am still shocked that he has not been indicted for a crime of some sort. One wonders if the thing that Bush broke is beyond repair. It certainly appears so at present. The Iraq war is beyond forgivable, all of Obama's failures COMBINED pale in comparison.

Exactly.

 

[Matt1970]

Hogwash.

"Climbing" is a suitably vague & partisan description. Debt grew very, very slowly from 1997- 2002, then the rate of increase exploded during the Repub bubble of the Bush years.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Debt had previously quadrupled during the RR/GHWB years, but I'm sure that facts will have no impact on the formulation of your opinion, such as it is.

Not hogwash. Climbing means only one thing. Goes up. To claim going up slowly is somehow going down, or in other words, surpluses " is a suitably vague & partisan description"

US Debt from your link.
2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

 

[Matt1970]

Until Obama gets the US into another big war like Iraq I'd say that alone keeps him ahead of Bush. Bush's legacy was Iraq, Obama's was ACA, which although not great at the very least got rid of prexisting condition exemption. Bush should have been at the very least impeached, if not actually imprisoned for getting the US embroiled in Iraq, but some people say Obama is worse?

Obama is not worse, but people are satisfied at better than Bush. We deserve much better.

 

[Smoblikat]

Those are bad counters.

The war: you are off by a few hundred thousand deaths, the destabilization of a region, a few trillion dollars, and the fact that continuing your predecessor's war and starting a whole new one for no good reason aren't the same thing. That's a pretty bad counterpoint.

The debt: you didn't read what I wrote. Running up the debt during low unemployment and a growing economy is bad. Running up the debt in a depression is good. What I fault Obama for here is not running up the debt enough. We needed less debt in the mid 2000's so we could run up more debt in the late 2000s and beyond.

The bubble: other people also failing to fix it does not absolve Bush of his responsibility. As both the president and the boss of the relevant regulatory agencies Bush had by far the most power to head off the housing bubble and police the rampant fraud that was taking place. He did neither. That's a massive failure by any standard.

Income inequality: this is factually incorrect.. Tax rates for the wealthy plummeted under Bush and they have increased significantly under Obama. Considering the squealing by the rich about "class warfare" and socialism, it appears they don't share your opinion of Obama.

I don't care whether or not you like or hate Bush or Obama. I personally hate the "they are both the same" argument though as it absolves Bush of accountability for his disastrous presidency. He was easily the worst president of the modern era, and one that conservatives enthusiastically supported for the majority of his tenure. There is no flushing that down the memory hole. (I always find it funny that it's so hard to find a conservative who admits voting for Bush despite Bush winning the conservative vote overwhmingly according to exit polls)

As far as the war goes, we did not destabilize anything. There has been a warring of factions over there for a thousand years, all we did was get involved, which I do not think we should have, but both Obama and Bush did anyway. Bush Jr. didnt even start our involvement over there anyway, that was Bush Sr., who was the president before Clinton. Which BTW, clinton invaded Iraq too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
But for some reason, Bush Jr. is the only one to ever get blamed for the middle east, makes no sense really.

For the debt, I disagree with your answer. Taking on debt is never a good thing, both Bush and Obama have done a tremendous job of burying us with unrealistic spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/?page=all

I dont think either president has done a particularly good job of managing our spending.

The bubble, I think I can agree with what you said. I think he needed to be smarter, BUT, its also very hard to worry about houses when you have as much as he did on his plate. I would say the same for Obama if he were in that position. Being the president isnt easy, and sometimes you make mistakes.

Income inequality: Well, it sounds like you WANT income inequality, you want the rich to be taxed more than you, thus making it unequal. What you want is income inequality in your favor, which sounds pretty greedy to me, isnt that the very thing you claim to oppose? Like I said before, both Bush and Obama are owned by corporations and global banks, so their interests are always going to be biased towards big business and the rich, regardless of what they say on TV. Also, why do tax rates even matter? If a rich man makes 1 million dollars and pays a 20% tax rate, thats $200,000. If I make $40,000 and have a 200% tax rate, thats still only $80,000 im spending in taxes, and this is assuming I owe double my entire salary in taxes. Sounds pretty fair to me, they make more and pay more. The real issue is the loopholes and BS regulations they exploit to pay 0% in taxes, which neither Bush or Obama has addressed. Also, Obama is/was using the IRS to target people who dont like him, that sounds fair to me....

Noone is trying to absolve Bush from his actions. I am trying to be realistic and saying that we can sit here and point the finger back and forth all day long, but that wouldnt do a damn thing. Its good to learn from the mistakes of others, but this whole "Bush is the root of evil in the universe" thing is just counter-productive, it has gone on for far too long and isnt doing anything but keeping us divided and distracted. Obama is in charge now, and when he took the job as president he absorbed all wrongdoing and problems that went along with it, he doesnt get to take credit for all the good and put all the bad on Bush.

 

[Thebobo]

Originally Posted by bshole
Invading Iraq was the single greatest foreign affairs disaster in American history. Given the deceitful methods Bush used to get America involved in it, I am still shocked that he has not been indicted for a crime of some sort. One wonders if the thing that Bush broke is beyond repair. It certainly appears so at present. The Iraq war is beyond forgivable, all of Obama's failures COMBINED pale in comparison.
Exactly.

Exactly

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the more telling points of right wing denial was the absence of Bush & Cheney at the 2008 Repub convention. The Party attempted to deny that the financial collapse was the result of their own policy & governance, that they somehow weren't responsible.

That denial has only deepened over the intervening years. Witness the claim that Barney Frank, a minority congressman at the time, bears greater responsibility than the President & all his men for the housing bubble. The delusional nature of that is astounding.

 

[fskimospy]

Not hogwash. Climbing means only one thing. Goes up. To claim going up slowly is somehow going down, or in other words, surpluses " is a suitably vague & partisan description"

US Debt from your link.
2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

Both you guys are including intragovernmental debt, which is a bad idea. Intragovernmental debt is debt that the government owes to itself. If your Bank of America account owed your Chase bank account $100 dollars, you wouldn't consider yourself $100 in debt, would you?

The more accurate number is the amount of federal debt held by the public. That indeed decreased starting in the late 90's and then went up significantly under Bush.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFDPUN

 

[Matt1970]

Both you guys are including intragovernmental debt, which is a bad idea. Intragovernmental debt is debt that the government owes to itself. If your Bank of America account owed your Chase bank account $100 dollars, you wouldn't consider yourself $100 in debt, would you?

The more accurate number is the amount of federal debt held by the public. That indeed decreased starting in the late 90's and then went up significantly under Bush.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFDPUN

Robbing the social security till is not intragovernmental debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol at Liberals still blaming Bush after their "chosen one" hasn't done shit in 6 years.

Delusional often? What part of filibuster, obstructionism & a Repub HOR do you fail to understand?

And now, when Obama sidesteps all of that wrt immigration, he's a tyrant, a usurper & worse?

When Righties get their head up their ass, they define progress as squeezing their shoulders in, too.

 

[Smoblikat]

Delusional often? What part of filibuster, obstructionism & a Repub HOR do you fail to understand?

And now, when Obama sidesteps all of that wrt immigration, he's a tyrant, a usurper & worse?

When Righties get their head up their ass, they define progress as squeezing their shoulders in, too.

When lefties disagree, they call the other side names like delusional instead of using facts!

 

[fskimospy]

As far as the war goes, we did not destabilize anything. There has been a warring of factions over there for a thousand years, all we did was get involved, which I do not think we should have, but both Obama and Bush did anyway.

Are you saying Iraq was equivalently stable before the 2003 invasion as it was after? What is your basis for this? Obama and Bush were not equivalently involved in Iraq in any way, shape, or form.

Bush Jr. didnt even start our involvement over there anyway, that was Bush Sr., who was the president before Clinton. Which BTW, clinton invaded Iraq too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
But for some reason, Bush Jr. is the only one to ever get blamed for the middle east, makes no sense really.

Bush Sr. fought Iraq and deliberately decided against a full invasion, overthrow, and occupation of Iraq. Clinton bombed Iraq a few times.

Bush Jr. invaded, overthrew, and occupied Iraq. He then installed his own preferred government. He gets blamed for it because he did way, way more than anyone before him and had way, way worse results.

For the debt, I disagree with your answer. Taking on debt is never a good thing, both Bush and Obama have done a tremendous job of burying us with unrealistic spending.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/?page=all

I dont think either president has done a particularly good job of managing our spending.

You are welcome to disagree with it, but economic analysis from numerous sources, including the IMF have shown that fiscal multipliers from government spending are considerably lower than 1 during good economic times and were considerably above 1 during this recent crisis.

What that means in effect is that when Bush was putting us a dollar into debt it caused our economy to grow by maybe $0.30 overall. This made our country more indebted. During the financial crisis and afterwards, multipliers were well above 1. That means for every dollar of deficit spending we made, our economy grew by $1.30 or more. ie: debt was making us better off.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1301.pdf

So no, all debt is not bad. Europe is learning this the hard way, by cutting deficit spending they have screwed themselves. Bush made a bad choice, Obama made a good one.

The bubble, I think I can agree with what you said. I think he needed to be smarter, BUT, its also very hard to worry about houses when you have as much as he did on his plate. I would say the same for Obama if he were in that position. Being the president isnt easy, and sometimes you make mistakes.

It is certainly possible that most other people would have made the same mistakes. It doesn't change his responsibility for making them. I feel the same way about 9/11. It's very possible a President Gore wouldn't have stopped the attack either, but it still happened on Bush's watch.

Income inequality: Well, it sounds like you WANT income inequality, you want the rich to be taxed more than you, thus making it unequal.

That's not income inequality, that's taxation inequality.

What you want is income inequality in your favor, which sounds pretty greedy to me, isnt that the very thing you claim to oppose?

You mean I want to be wealthy? Of course I do. I don't oppose all income inequality, but I do oppose extreme income inequality. The US has reached third world levels of it according to our Gini coefficient.

If you mean I want tax inequality in my favor, not really. I already pay more in taxes than I receive in services each year, so I'm already on the bad end of that one and I don't care. I'd be willing to accept a higher tax bill in the future as well.

Like I said before, both Bush and Obama are owned by corporations and global banks, so their interests are always going to be biased towards big business and the rich, regardless of what they say on TV. Also, why do tax rates even matter? If a rich man makes 1 million dollars and pays a 20% tax rate, thats $200,000. If I make $40,000 and have a 200% tax rate, thats still only $80,000 im spending in taxes, and this is assuming I owe double my entire salary in taxes. Sounds pretty fair to me, they make more and pay more. The real issue is the loopholes and BS regulations they exploit to pay 0% in taxes, which neither Bush or Obama has addressed.

I'm perfectly fine with progressive taxation. Of course they aren't in isolation, but obviously tax rates matter. All things being equal a higher tax rate hurts rich people. The idea that Obama and Bush have been equally friendly to the ultra rich is disproven by the easiest measure possible: go look at the actions of the very top earners. Were they more likely to support or oppose Bush in general? Are they more likely to support or oppose Obama in general?

Also, Obama is/was using the IRS to target people who dont like him, that sounds fair to me....

No he wasn't. There is zero evidence for that whatsoever.

Noone is trying to absolve Bush from his actions. I am trying to be realistic and saying that we can sit here and point the finger back and forth all day long, but that wouldnt do a damn thing. Its good to learn from the mistakes of others, but this whole "Bush is the root of evil in the universe" thing is just counter-productive, it has gone on for far too long and isnt doing anything but keeping us divided and distracted. Obama is in charge now, and when he took the job as president he absorbed all wrongdoing and problems that went along with it, he doesnt get to take credit for all the good and put all the bad on Bush.

This isn't what's happening though. Bush made a number of absolutely catastrophic mistakes. We all need to recognize that. Saying that people are claiming Bush is the root of all evil is a straw man. Pointing out his many failures isn't the same thing.

Obama is responsible for the actions he takes, just as Bush was responsible for his actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[shira]

Until Obama gets the US into another big war like Iraq I'd say that alone keeps him ahead of Bush. Bush's legacy was Iraq, Obama's was ACA, which although not great at the very least got rid of prexisting condition exemption. Bush should have been at the very least impeached, if not actually imprisoned for getting the US embroiled in Iraq, but some people say Obama is worse?

I'm still trying to understand what's so horrible about the ACA. By all objective accounts, millions more have health insurance, the yearly deficit is smaller because of it, and the rate of increase of health costs has been reduced considerably. But conservatives continue to scream what a disaster the ACA is.

Oh, that's right, the individual mandate. That's why the ACA is a disaster. Because it's so unreasonable for the U.S. to now require that everyone be responsible and not burden the rest of society with huge health care costs if they go uninsured and then suffer a severe illness. You know, the same crazy reasoning used (and totally accepted by conservatives) when society requires that anyone who drives a car have a certain minimum level of liability insurance.

 

[Jhhnn]

Robbing the social security till is not intragovernmental debt.

Investing SS funds in US govt securities is not robbery unless Repubs can repudiate that obligation, which they've attempted to accomplish in a variety of ways.

It's remarkable how Righties can drag out & chant every mindless & inaccurate trope of propaganda in defense of the lies they believe in so fervently.

 

[Matt1970]

Both you guys are including intragovernmental debt, which is a bad idea. Intragovernmental debt is debt that the government owes to itself. If your Bank of America account owed your Chase bank account $100 dollars, you wouldn't consider yourself $100 in debt, would you?

The more accurate number is the amount of federal debt held by the public. That indeed decreased starting in the late 90's and then went up significantly under Bush.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYGFDPUN

Here, click this and hold your mouse over where the revenue drops for 2001.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FGRECPT

That would be the first quarter of fiscal year 2001. That was the dot-com burst. Bush's first economic policy was the tax cut (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001) signed into law at the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. Bush didn't squander the 'surpluses', they were going to be gone no matter what he did.

 

[Jhhnn]

When lefties disagree, they call the other side names like delusional instead of using facts!

Heh. How lame. You attempted to blame Barney Frank for the housing bubble but call me delusional?

That speaks for itself in ways you'll ignore until your last breath. Righties form their opinions on the basis of what feels good, then attempt to justify them with selected "facts" rather than evaluating the facts beforehand.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here, click this and hold your mouse over where the revenue drops for 2001.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FGRECPT

That would be the first quarter of fiscal year 2001. That was the dot-com burst. Bush's first economic policy was the tax cut (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001) signed into law at the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2001. Bush didn't squander the 'surpluses', they were going to be gone no matter what he did.

And, uhh, so what? That certainly doesn't account for the subsequent debt run up in executing wars of adventure & top tier tax cuts. It certainly doesn't account for the enormous spike in debt acquisition in FY 2009 required to prevent financial collapse from the policies of Repub governance over the Bush years.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm still trying to understand what's so horrible about the ACA. By all objective accounts, millions more have health insurance, the yearly deficit is smaller because of it, and the rate of increase of health costs has been reduced considerably. But conservatives continue to scream what a disaster the ACA is.

Oh, that's right, the individual mandate. That's why the ACA is a disaster. Because it's so unreasonable for the U.S. to now require that everyone be responsible and not burden the rest of society with huge health care costs if they go uninsured and then suffer a severe illness. You know, the same crazy reasoning used (and totally accepted by conservatives) when society requires that anyone who drives a car have a certain minimum level of liability insurance.

If you think you can make a dent in their Faith by using reason, you're sadly mistaken. Their political stance is based on the same sort of leaps of Faith as religion. Might as well argue the virgin birth with Christian Reconstructionists & Dominionists.

 

[Meghan54]

As far as the war goes, we did not destabilize anything. There has been a warring of factions over there for a thousand years, all we did was get involved, which I do not think we should have, but both Obama and Bush did anyway. Bush Jr. didnt even start our involvement over there anyway, that was Bush Sr., who was the president before Clinton. Which BTW, clinton invaded Iraq too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
But for some reason, Bush Jr. is the only one to ever get blamed for the middle east, makes no sense really.

So, lobbing bombs now qualifies as invading with ground troops, which is the definition of an invasion---ground troops taking over another's territory. Don't see how Clinton is lumped into the "invasion" rhetoric.

And the Bush II war did indeed destabilize the region far beyond what anyone had done prior to Eisenhower's use of the CIA to "help" overthrow the elected gov't. of Iran in 1953(?), I believe was the year.

Prior to Saddam being ousted from power by Bush, Saddam was indeed a very moderating influence in that region, shown by his lack of giving neither Suunis nor Shiites real power in his gov't and his 7 year war with Iran.

If anything, Saddam was a sabre rattler and ruled with an iron fist in his country, and while he paid lip service to Islam, Islam had no place in his governing of his country. Saddam kept everyone under his rule under his thumb. I don't remember an Imam dictating or even suggesting to Saddam any particular course of action.

No, the current political destabilization in that region almost completely rests on Bush's ineptness in decision making, his characterizations of Iraq as having WMD's of all sorts ("We know right where they are.") and his nuclear program being damned near ready to lob nuclear missiles to the U.S., which of course was all fabrications.

I swear, the Republican presidents have never met a war they didn't want or want to create.

As for the nat'l debt:

 

[Matt1970]

Investing SS funds in US govt securities is not robbery unless Repubs can repudiate that obligation, which they've attempted to accomplish in a variety of ways.

It's remarkable how Righties can drag out & chant every mindless & inaccurate trope of propaganda in defense of the lies they believe in so fervently.

Except they are robbing it for a lot more than government securities. And how do you think those obligations are paid back?