This is one of those toons that Conservatives love so much, none of it is true but it allows them to pretend nothing is getting done so they can blast Obama and the DEMS.
Obama and the DEMS has done things about Health Care, Energy, unemployment, finanical reform, Afganistan, and the Gulf Oil. Probably nothing that the GOP would like, since they don’t want these problems fixed, but much has been done, and most of it without any help from the GOP.
All of the problems solved? What in two years, do you really think you can fix this much mess that has been left you in just two years, with the other party trying to block you all the way?
There is one truth to thing about when you look at all of these problems – From now to November the GOP will do all they can to make sure nothing gets done, and if they win in November they will spend the next two years making sure nothing gets done.
If you want these problems fixed, and you care about America over party, then don’t vote for the GOP.
Oh, and by the way, since this an election year, and the GOP has already spend millions on political ads, what have they said they would do about these problems– what programs, plans, or ideas have they offered.
If you think Obama inherited a plateful, you should have seen what Jimmy Peanuts left behind. The difference, of course, is that President Reagan was a man, not a puppet. He addressed the problems quickly and efficiently, and didn’t have to grovel. He took care of the nation, and pulled us up by the bootstraps. His economic genius was enough to not only salvage a catastrophe, but to set us full sail to prosperity until the 2006 election when the Dems gained control of congress. I must give credit to Bill Clinton. He was smart enough to let the train roll.
obama just can’t suck it up take what has been given him and do something besides blame everyone in site. i never saw bush blame anyone and he did not inherit perfection.
The economy is not growing - small business is not hiring - simply beacuse of ObamaCare - NO ONE know excatly how much that obamination (sorry for the spelling error) will eventually cost us in terms of actual dollars and lack of economic growth.
More government is NOT the answer no matter what the question is…
Bush never blamed anyone? Bush never blamed himself for anything. His administration constantly and consistently blamed Clinton for everything they could. Just Google “Bush Blaming Clinton.”
“Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession,” Bush told donors at a Bush-Cheney ‘04 reception yesterday in Miami. (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000360.php)
“…the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.” (http://tinyurl.com/mrcjka)
August 20, 2005, Bush blamed events that happened during Carter’s, Clinton’s, and Reagan’s administrations (but not his fatther’s) for why they thought they could attack us on 9/11. Which of course they did. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/)
He also blamed Clinton (falsely) for job losses:
“In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We’re turning that around,” said Bush, who cited the addition of 107,000 manufacturing jobs this year.
“According to the Labor Department, … the economy still has lost 913,000 positions since Bush took office…”
http://tinyurl.com/292pwyr
Bush, June 2000: “Clinton-Gore administration’s been there for seven years, we’re more dependent now than ever before on energy from foreign sources. And I am amazed that they’re trying to shift the blame away from the people that are holding the office. And I resent that kind of politics, and so will the American people…” (http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/23/se.02.html)
Apparently they won’t.
Whether the statements are true or false, the statement that “Bush never blamed anyone” is patently false. Please quit repeating it. Thank you.
In manufacturing alone, the number of job losses under Bush stands at 2.67 million, recovering by 107,000 factory jobs since January…
Loco, sorry, but if you think your man Reagan, may he rest in peace, inherited hell on earth you might be slightly mistaken. Carter did give him a depressed economy, but in the first several years of Reagan’s first term - especially in 1982/83, things got worse. In fact, when Carter handed over power unemployment, though high, was stable - it started rising several months afterwards, and peaked in the 1982-3 winter. Obama hasn’t even gotten to that point in his presidency yet.
Now, check the figures themselves - I looked it up at the www.miseryindex.us/ , looking by month, from August 1979 to August 1988. Reagan entered office with unemployment in the mid-7s, and it was about stable until the early autumn (btw, in a moment of dark irony, he passed the Economic Recovery Act around that time). Then it started rising for over a year, peaking at 10.8 in the end of 1982. That’s some delayed effect! In fact, by the time of his re-election, it was still about as high as it was when he came to power. Compare that to how things were in 2008-9. In the second part of 2008, unemployment rose from 5.8 to 7.4, by the time Obama had spent half a year in office it had risen to 9.4. Sorry, but Reagan did not have to deal with that. OR with a massively increased debt - Carter was the second-to-last president of the US to lower the debt/GDP ratio during his term. So yeah, things weren’t too good when Carter left, but it wasn’t the economic freefall the right is so eager to pin 101% on Obama either.
If the early 1980’s crisis was Carter’s fault, then obviously the current problems ARE Bush’s fault.
“i never saw bush blame anyone and he did not inherit perfection.”
halfabug, I didn’t necessarily SEE it, per se (I don’t attend all his speeches ;) ), but Clinton was blamed for a lot of things back in the early 2000s. Bush personally said that he inherited a depression (although he inherited one a heck of a lot better than the one he left), stating that things were bad because he inherited a recession (which is darkly hilarious, considering what he left). Clinton was also blamed for the security situation, as the Bush administration argued that US’ intelligence services were not well organized and thus missed stopping 9/11. Not to mention the kind of things Clinton was blamed for in some media - I’d say every time a right-wing politician or public figure got into a scandal, some talking head would say it was Clinton who poisoned the moral climate in the US…
http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/ is one example where the lackluster state of the US’ economy was blamed on the Cliton legacy. You can find more ;) .
I read somewhere that the amount of the value of the health insurance IS reported on the W-2, but is not taxed. (See TIGGER above) Would someone smarter than I am please verify that for one of us?
4X– when unemployment soared under Reagan, they started including the members of the military as “employed” to bring the figures (on paper only) down.
“Guest workers” is an intelligent alternative to allowing “illegals” to stay, but it also needs reform on the number of Chinese, Indians, and others with degrees who are coming in and taking “white collar” jobs at much lower rates than Americans are earning. We also must RE-build production capacity for many items we used to produce at home, like well, electronics and steel. CORPORATIONS must dig into their OWN pockets and profits to do that.
Ouch, we can’t actually make the corporations pull away from the government teat.
Bush inherited a recession - dot com bubble bust, the country’s economy was hit with close to a $trillion loss from the 9/11 love-fest, and the consequent wars were not exactly free, and yet, the economy boomed - with full employment - until the housing bubble burst, triggering the World financial crises.
Of course if you are a leftist:
Bush inherited a booming economy with a budget surplus, caused the 9/11 to create an excuse to attack Afghanistan (for emeralds?) and Iraq for oil and to pay back for Saddam’s attempt on dad’s life, all the while exported high paying jobs to China’s children camps … .and the housing boom was driven by a few republican cronies who were trading houses amongst themselves, for no one else could afford buy homes … .
Bush did not inherit a recession. The bubble might have continued longer were it not for 9/11, which Bush addressed by spending more money in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cutting taxes on the rich (but not helping the poor). Yeah.
Furthermore, it was the derivatives market on bad debt which was the real killer of the market; housing was a part of that but not all of it, nor central. The Republicans did their best to encourage that extremely new and unregulated form of trading, which failed cataclysmically.
CHURCH - HOW IF a DEM had been President in 2008 you would have no trouble blaming the recession on him, what you are trying to say is that no matter what Bush did the recession would have happened anyhow, so the President has no control over or responsibility for the Economy.
I don’t think you believe that because I don’t think you are that stupid, all you are doing is once again making excuses for the GOP and blaming the DEMS, and doing that will never solve any of our problems.
Democracy can only work if people work together and that involves compromise, if you are not willing to discuss the FACTS, and talk about REALITY, then we cannot move forward, and if we don’t move forward we will stagnate and die.
^^^The dot com bubble didn’t take down America. It only took down a few investors who were dumb enough to buy into the craze. Jobs were still intact (to a degree) and tech stocks were taking over (Lucent Technologies and such) for the dot com meltdown. Mind you this was before NAFTA.
Also Clinton had something called PayGo, which meant that for every budget that was passed there had to be a way to fund the projects (i.e. small tax hike on the rich). Guess who blew up paygo when he got elected into office and spent Clinton’s surplus?
ie. A general attitude that deficits don’t matter, that there is no limit to spending, that political expediency is more important than financial responsibility, that wasteful “pork” is not without consequence, that wealth and debt are synonomous, that the economy is “bulletproof”.
kennethcwarren64 almost 14 years ago
Bush sure left a full table.
This is one of those toons that Conservatives love so much, none of it is true but it allows them to pretend nothing is getting done so they can blast Obama and the DEMS.
Obama and the DEMS has done things about Health Care, Energy, unemployment, finanical reform, Afganistan, and the Gulf Oil. Probably nothing that the GOP would like, since they don’t want these problems fixed, but much has been done, and most of it without any help from the GOP.
All of the problems solved? What in two years, do you really think you can fix this much mess that has been left you in just two years, with the other party trying to block you all the way?
There is one truth to thing about when you look at all of these problems – From now to November the GOP will do all they can to make sure nothing gets done, and if they win in November they will spend the next two years making sure nothing gets done.
If you want these problems fixed, and you care about America over party, then don’t vote for the GOP.
Oh, and by the way, since this an election year, and the GOP has already spend millions on political ads, what have they said they would do about these problems– what programs, plans, or ideas have they offered.
As the song says” The Sound Of Silence.”
Loco80 almost 14 years ago
If you think Obama inherited a plateful, you should have seen what Jimmy Peanuts left behind. The difference, of course, is that President Reagan was a man, not a puppet. He addressed the problems quickly and efficiently, and didn’t have to grovel. He took care of the nation, and pulled us up by the bootstraps. His economic genius was enough to not only salvage a catastrophe, but to set us full sail to prosperity until the 2006 election when the Dems gained control of congress. I must give credit to Bill Clinton. He was smart enough to let the train roll.
SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
Loco,
What alternate reality did step out from? Would you mind going back?
halfabug almost 14 years ago
obama just can’t suck it up take what has been given him and do something besides blame everyone in site. i never saw bush blame anyone and he did not inherit perfection.
halfabug almost 14 years ago
sorry sight.
Simon_Jester almost 14 years ago
Obama increased the deficit tigger, by including the Iraq war in the budget, instead of running it off the books the way the Bushies did.
In other words, it only went up on paper
mredd3 almost 14 years ago
The economy is not growing - small business is not hiring - simply beacuse of ObamaCare - NO ONE know excatly how much that obamination (sorry for the spelling error) will eventually cost us in terms of actual dollars and lack of economic growth.
More government is NOT the answer no matter what the question is…
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
Bush never blamed anyone? Bush never blamed himself for anything. His administration constantly and consistently blamed Clinton for everything they could. Just Google “Bush Blaming Clinton.” “Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession,” Bush told donors at a Bush-Cheney ‘04 reception yesterday in Miami. (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000360.php) “…the senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what is believed to be inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.” (http://tinyurl.com/mrcjka) August 20, 2005, Bush blamed events that happened during Carter’s, Clinton’s, and Reagan’s administrations (but not his fatther’s) for why they thought they could attack us on 9/11. Which of course they did. (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/) He also blamed Clinton (falsely) for job losses: “In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We’re turning that around,” said Bush, who cited the addition of 107,000 manufacturing jobs this year. “According to the Labor Department, … the economy still has lost 913,000 positions since Bush took office…” http://tinyurl.com/292pwyr Bush, June 2000: “Clinton-Gore administration’s been there for seven years, we’re more dependent now than ever before on energy from foreign sources. And I am amazed that they’re trying to shift the blame away from the people that are holding the office. And I resent that kind of politics, and so will the American people…” (http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/23/se.02.html) Apparently they won’t. Whether the statements are true or false, the statement that “Bush never blamed anyone” is patently false. Please quit repeating it. Thank you. In manufacturing alone, the number of job losses under Bush stands at 2.67 million, recovering by 107,000 factory jobs since January…
4uk4ata almost 14 years ago
Loco, sorry, but if you think your man Reagan, may he rest in peace, inherited hell on earth you might be slightly mistaken. Carter did give him a depressed economy, but in the first several years of Reagan’s first term - especially in 1982/83, things got worse. In fact, when Carter handed over power unemployment, though high, was stable - it started rising several months afterwards, and peaked in the 1982-3 winter. Obama hasn’t even gotten to that point in his presidency yet.
Now, check the figures themselves - I looked it up at the www.miseryindex.us/ , looking by month, from August 1979 to August 1988. Reagan entered office with unemployment in the mid-7s, and it was about stable until the early autumn (btw, in a moment of dark irony, he passed the Economic Recovery Act around that time). Then it started rising for over a year, peaking at 10.8 in the end of 1982. That’s some delayed effect! In fact, by the time of his re-election, it was still about as high as it was when he came to power. Compare that to how things were in 2008-9. In the second part of 2008, unemployment rose from 5.8 to 7.4, by the time Obama had spent half a year in office it had risen to 9.4. Sorry, but Reagan did not have to deal with that. OR with a massively increased debt - Carter was the second-to-last president of the US to lower the debt/GDP ratio during his term. So yeah, things weren’t too good when Carter left, but it wasn’t the economic freefall the right is so eager to pin 101% on Obama either.
If the early 1980’s crisis was Carter’s fault, then obviously the current problems ARE Bush’s fault.
“i never saw bush blame anyone and he did not inherit perfection.”
halfabug, I didn’t necessarily SEE it, per se (I don’t attend all his speeches ;) ), but Clinton was blamed for a lot of things back in the early 2000s. Bush personally said that he inherited a depression (although he inherited one a heck of a lot better than the one he left), stating that things were bad because he inherited a recession (which is darkly hilarious, considering what he left). Clinton was also blamed for the security situation, as the Bush administration argued that US’ intelligence services were not well organized and thus missed stopping 9/11. Not to mention the kind of things Clinton was blamed for in some media - I’d say every time a right-wing politician or public figure got into a scandal, some talking head would say it was Clinton who poisoned the moral climate in the US…
http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/ is one example where the lackluster state of the US’ economy was blamed on the Cliton legacy. You can find more ;) .
Mythreesons almost 14 years ago
I read somewhere that the amount of the value of the health insurance IS reported on the W-2, but is not taxed. (See TIGGER above) Would someone smarter than I am please verify that for one of us?
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
“More government is NOT the answer no matter what the question is…”
Agreed. Remove DOMA & DADT.SuperGriz almost 14 years ago
“The Democrats and Obama increased the Federal Deficit by $212 Billion in only 28 Days!”
Is that all? What pikers!
Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Huh… there’s something to michaelwme’s post. http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=918764&category=opinion
I also agree with the first portion of your post.
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
Interesting post, michaelwme.
myming almost 14 years ago
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/03/18/cadillac-tax-is-health-insurance-a-luxury/
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
4X– when unemployment soared under Reagan, they started including the members of the military as “employed” to bring the figures (on paper only) down.
“Guest workers” is an intelligent alternative to allowing “illegals” to stay, but it also needs reform on the number of Chinese, Indians, and others with degrees who are coming in and taking “white collar” jobs at much lower rates than Americans are earning. We also must RE-build production capacity for many items we used to produce at home, like well, electronics and steel. CORPORATIONS must dig into their OWN pockets and profits to do that.
Ouch, we can’t actually make the corporations pull away from the government teat.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Bush inherited a recession - dot com bubble bust, the country’s economy was hit with close to a $trillion loss from the 9/11 love-fest, and the consequent wars were not exactly free, and yet, the economy boomed - with full employment - until the housing bubble burst, triggering the World financial crises.
Of course if you are a leftist: Bush inherited a booming economy with a budget surplus, caused the 9/11 to create an excuse to attack Afghanistan (for emeralds?) and Iraq for oil and to pay back for Saddam’s attempt on dad’s life, all the while exported high paying jobs to China’s children camps … .and the housing boom was driven by a few republican cronies who were trading houses amongst themselves, for no one else could afford buy homes … .
Motivemagus almost 14 years ago
Bush did not inherit a recession. The bubble might have continued longer were it not for 9/11, which Bush addressed by spending more money in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cutting taxes on the rich (but not helping the poor). Yeah. Furthermore, it was the derivatives market on bad debt which was the real killer of the market; housing was a part of that but not all of it, nor central. The Republicans did their best to encourage that extremely new and unregulated form of trading, which failed cataclysmically.
petergrt almost 14 years ago
Motive, you live in a World that is devised by and exclusively for leftists.
If real facts don’t support your proclivities, something gets invented, if you bother at all.
Being a psychologist, you ought to know something about delusions … .look in the mirror.
kennethcwarren64 almost 14 years ago
CHURCH - HOW IF a DEM had been President in 2008 you would have no trouble blaming the recession on him, what you are trying to say is that no matter what Bush did the recession would have happened anyhow, so the President has no control over or responsibility for the Economy.
I don’t think you believe that because I don’t think you are that stupid, all you are doing is once again making excuses for the GOP and blaming the DEMS, and doing that will never solve any of our problems.
Democracy can only work if people work together and that involves compromise, if you are not willing to discuss the FACTS, and talk about REALITY, then we cannot move forward, and if we don’t move forward we will stagnate and die.
rfischer Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Causes of the US budget deficit 1) Two wars 2) Recession 3) TARP 4) Tax cuts for the rich
Note that these are all Bush/GOP creations.
WarBush almost 14 years ago
^^^The dot com bubble didn’t take down America. It only took down a few investors who were dumb enough to buy into the craze. Jobs were still intact (to a degree) and tech stocks were taking over (Lucent Technologies and such) for the dot com meltdown. Mind you this was before NAFTA.
Also Clinton had something called PayGo, which meant that for every budget that was passed there had to be a way to fund the projects (i.e. small tax hike on the rich). Guess who blew up paygo when he got elected into office and spent Clinton’s surplus?
Hint: He’s my Avatar.
Gypsy8 almost 14 years ago
rfischer, I would add a fifth reason:
5) Profligate financial attitude.
ie. A general attitude that deficits don’t matter, that there is no limit to spending, that political expediency is more important than financial responsibility, that wasteful “pork” is not without consequence, that wealth and debt are synonomous, that the economy is “bulletproof”.