Quantcast

Why do the liberals like to blame George W. Bush for this recession when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate the last two years of his presidency?

GoDucks5 2013/01/16 01:35:45
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Falcon 2013/01/16 22:46:18
    Falcon
    +3
    Because Bush held the veto pen and nothing got passed that he didn't sign. Besides. the first six years set the stage for the crash.
  • indigoeyes57 2013/01/16 21:59:06
    indigoeyes57
    +2
    Because the Democrats ride Unicorns and have a unlimited supply of Pixie Dust.
  • roman 2013/01/16 21:10:55
    roman
    +1
    EVER HEAR OF EXECUTIVE POWER ITS WHAT THE REPUBS ARE CRYING THAT BIG O IS GONNA USE BUSH2 WAS A HEAVY USER THRU BOTH TERMS OF HIS KING SHIP
  • bill.fleming.77 2013/01/16 19:35:59
    bill.fleming.77
    +2
    Why not pass the blame their minions nor the MSM will ever challenge it.
  • TerryAgee 2013/01/16 17:53:23
    TerryAgee
    +2
    I agree that Prez G.W. Bush didn't cause this recession by himself. But, I blame the American people for accepting government corruption and moving on.
  • Leona Hill 2013/01/16 17:01:45
    Leona Hill
    +1
    I don't blame George W.Bush for starting the recession, I blame him for starting the war in Iraq for his own personal reasons.
  • roman Leona Hill 2013/01/16 21:12:30
    roman
    HE DID CRASH THE WORLD ECONOMY YA KNOW happened in 08 before he split from that word rethugs love to hate responsibility
  • sneekyfoot 2013/01/16 17:00:26
    sneekyfoot
    +2
    He put us in 2 wars and helped to deregulate wall street(junk bonds) and banking (mortage)industry.
  • Kurt 2013/01/16 16:31:00
    Kurt
    +1
    Because they have no common sense or any actual real life intelligence for that matter.
  • john brenni 2013/01/16 16:09:49
  • AG 2013/01/16 15:46:53
    AG
    +1
    Because that's what they do. NOTHING ELSE.
  • gregory.brown.5030 2013/01/16 15:02:05
    gregory.brown.5030
    +1
    Got to blame someone, It can't be their fault. I personally blame ALFRED E. NEWMAN!
  • ProudProgressive 2013/01/16 14:49:46
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    Because (a) the Bush Recession didn't happen overnight, but was the result of failed policies going all the way back to 2001 when Bush gave away a $300 billion annual surplus to the richest Americans, and 2002, when he lied us into a war that had no basis and cost trillions of dollars with no idea how to pay for it, and (b) because as soon as the Democrats got a majority in the Senate the Republicans began to filibuster every proposal the Democrats made. The Democrats never controlled the Senate under George Bush. And (c) because everything Congress does is signed by the President of the United States.
  • yaaarrr... ProudPr... 2013/01/16 15:26:39
    yaaarrrggghhh
    +1
    Ahh, we have a different set of standards now that Obama is president.
    And the recession started under Clinton, not Bush.
    And there was no $300 billion surplus.
    And the wars cost $1 trillion over a period of 8 years.
  • ProudPr... yaaarrr... 2013/01/16 15:33:57
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    No, the recession did not start under Clinton.

    And the surplus was closer to $350 billion.

    And the wars have cost closer to $3 trillion and have added more to our national debt than every penny President Obama's programs have added since the day he took office.
  • yaaarrr... ProudPr... 2013/01/16 15:42:03
    yaaarrrggghhh
    +1
    The wars became Obama's babies when he took office. He voted every time to fund said wars while a Senator. Under Bush, they cost just under $1 trillion.


    Show me the surplus. This is the outstanding debt from http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
    wars senator bush cost 1 surplus debt httpwww treasurydirect gov

    The 2001 recession did begin under Clinton.
  • ProudPr... yaaarrr... 2013/01/16 15:49:00
    ProudProgressive
    No, those wars did not "become Obama's babies". Bush set the house on fire and you're calling President Obama an arsonist.

    And learn the difference between debt and deficit. No one claims that the national debt was erased. What Clinton accomplished was several years of ANNUAL surpluses - in other words, several years in which the government's revenues exceeded its spending.

    dfgdfgdfgdfg

    And the first Bush recession began in March, 2001. He took office in January, 2001. Do the math.

    "According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001."
  • yaaarrr... ProudPr... 2013/01/16 15:56:02
    yaaarrrggghhh
    +1
    If there was a surplus, why did the debt continue to rise every year under Clinton? You may be fooled by bookkeeping tricks and mumbo jumbo, but I am not.

    So, you say the Bush recession of 2007 didn't happen overnight, but you are willing to claim that he caused a recession in 2001 in less than 2 months? Get real. If you look at the GDP, it's obvious the recession started 6 months before before Clinton left office.
  • ProudPr... yaaarrr... 2013/01/16 16:08:02
    ProudProgressive
    And who controlled Congress in 2001, and 2000 and 1999? If you're claiming that a Democratic majority in Congress in 2007 caused the recession in 2007, then you're conceding that the Republicans were also responsible for the recession in 2001.
  • yaaarrr... ProudPr... 2013/01/16 16:15:51
    yaaarrrggghhh
    No, I actually think that the gutting of Glass Stegall and the ramping up of the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton caused the financial meltdown of 2007. I think Congress was kept busy dealing with worldwide terrorism during the Bush administration, and despite warnings from a few Republicans and Democrats alike, the housing bubble and credit bubble were allowed to go unchecked.
  • indigoe... yaaarrr... 2013/01/16 21:57:21
    indigoeyes57
    +1
    Oh no facts,but those facts doesn't favor the great Clinton so we can't use them.Funny how Obama is never had to balance a budget since the Senate won't pass one.
  • Hawkeye ProudPr... 2013/01/16 15:45:42
    Hawkeye
    +1
    On September 11, 2012,, the GAO released an accounting of the Wars as they do every year.. Total costs of BOTH wars as of THAT date was a grand total of 1.4Trillion DOllars and they were adament in including the MEDICAL costs of returning vets as well.. Total osts of those wars on the day that Obama became president was 850 bilion DOllars.. I have heard some of you left wingers claim that the costs were as high as 10 Trillion..

    1.4 Trillion as of 2012.. Roughly the amount of ANY ONE of Obama's Deficit for each year..
  • ProudPr... Hawkeye 2013/01/16 15:56:28
    ProudProgressive
    LOL not hardly. In fact, $3 trillion is an underestimate. You also overlook the fact that our annual deficits INCLUDE a lot of those costs. Without those two wars no annual deficit would have even reached $1 trillion. (And let's not forget that the Republicans have controlled the house for the last two years and have controlled the Senate for all but 74 days over the last six years, so don't try to call it "Obama's deficit".)


    The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond
    By Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes
    Sunday, September 5, 2010

    Writing in these pages in early 2008, we put the total cost to the United States of the Iraq war at $3 trillion. This price tag dwarfed previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003 projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.

    But today, as the United States ends combat in Iraq, it appears that our $3 trillion estimate (which accounted for both government expenses and the war's broader impact on the U.S. economy) was, if anything, too low. For example, the cost of diagnosing, treating and compensating disabled veterans has proved higher than we expected.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...
  • Hawkeye ProudPr... 2013/01/16 17:37:20
    Hawkeye
    Like i said.. The GAO under FOUR YEARS of Obama rule made their assessments of the ACTUAL costs of the wars which INCLUDED the costs of the aftermath but I guess YOU know betterbecause YOU have a COLUMN from some Newpaper that admits they were wrong before,, eh??
  • Hawkeye ProudPr... 2013/01/16 15:41:15
    Hawkeye
    +2
    Ahhh HERE we GO again.. Bush gave tax cuts ONLY to the wealthy YET,, when it came down to restoring tax beaks recently,, When those tax breaks were going to expire and it was ALL Americans and the whole country that were going to suffer IF those tax breaks weren't restored,, all of a sudden it WASN'T just the rich that got them....

    You clowns on the left SURE do pick and choose your "Truths",, don't you??
  • ProudPr... Hawkeye 2013/01/16 15:51:16
    ProudProgressive
    I didn't say he gave tax cuts ONLY to the wealthy. Tax cuts for working Americans and those who don't have elevators for their cars make sense. They put more money in the pockets of consumers, which increases demand and stimulates the economy. But there was no reason for Bush to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, which not only didn't create any jobs but also didn't stimulate anyone's economy but the recipients when they took those dollars and put them in Swiss accounts so they could avoid paying their fair share of taxes. President Obama wisely ENDED those tax breaks for the richest Americans, and protected the rest of the population.
  • ed ProudPr... 2013/01/16 16:22:44
    ed
    The .COM bubble burst under Clinton, start of the recession. But I couldn't care less who was president because it was the Federal Reserve and the Government and our worthless fiat money that is the reason for our Business Cycles. We will never solve our problem as long as we have fiat money, and sadly I don't believe our leaders want it solved. Also, I am not a rich person, no where close, and I got money from Bush. It was a stupid idea, but he did more for me that Obama, this clown is robbing me instead of giving me money. Yes, the wars were a waste and a lie and we never should have started them (Although they never were even declared)
  • dave b 2013/01/16 13:33:46
    dave b
    +1
    Many Libs love to blame because they wont accept any mistakes made by their "team" (football mentality) and therefore, they have to blame Republicans.
    This seems to be true across the board and inckudes media figures and politicians, not just the sniveling hypocrtie Libs on SH.
    Furthermore, Bush could have told them "no" but he for the most part, wouldnt. I'm still pissed off about TARP.
  • RoyJLores 2013/01/16 13:33:21
    RoyJLores
    +1
    I blame both the Repugnicants and the Demonicrats for the mess we are in and have been since 1913...
    blame repugnicants demonicrats mess 1913

    blame repugnicants demonicrats mess 1913
  • shadow76 2013/01/16 13:06:36
    shadow76
    +2
    Also, we were starting to go into a recession in December while Clinton was still there. Then there was 9-11.. They just can't face the truth!
  • kevin.m.koop 2013/01/16 13:05:03
    kevin.m.koop
    +2
    I know the answer to this one! Because liberals are useless, lazy, and poorly educated morons! They believe whatever Obama tells them. They aren't smart enough to question authority. AUTHORITY MUST ALWAYS BE QUESTIONED!!!
  • Hawkeye 2013/01/16 12:05:14
    Hawkeye
    +3
    For the SAME reasons they're trying to change HISTORY by saying that the KKK was Created by Right Wing Conservatives.. Or that NAZISM,, a SOCIALIST'S Movement,, is also right wing..

    If YOU had their History,, YOU'D be trying to get out from under it too..

    If THEY had THEIR way,, EVERYTHING bad that EVER happened would be right wing and everything GOOD would be by the hands of people JUST LIKE THEM..
  • ProudPr... Hawkeye 2013/01/16 14:54:09
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    The KKK was created by Southern Right Wing Conservatives after the Civil War in order to prevent freed slaves from exercising their Constitutional rights. And Right Wing Conservatives have continued to try to prevent blacks from exercising those rights ever since. As for the Nazis, they were as far to the Right as political positions can go. Nazis were not socialists. The name "National Socialist" had nothing to do with socialism (or do you believe that China is a "People's Republic" too?)

    Most of the bad that has happened since this country was founded HAS been caused by the Right Wing. Remember, conservatives OPPOSED American independence, conservatives started the Civil War, conservatives opposed voting rights for blacks and women, and conservatives opposed every piece of civil rights legislation ever introduced.
  • Hawkeye ProudPr... 2013/01/16 15:57:02
    Hawkeye
    +1
    Thanks for making MY point ..

    The KKK was Created by DEEMOCRATS and many LEADERS of that Terrorist's group were ALSO leaders of the Democrat Party.. Some,, Like Robert " Sheets " Byrd and Strom Thurman,, FILIBUSTERED the CRAs of 1957 and 1964.. And Byrd is REVERED to this very day in the Democrat Party.... They were NOT right Wing.. They were NOT politically Conservative as the term is used today..The were DEMOCRATS..

    " National Socisliem has nothing to do with Socialism" .. WHAT a CROCK.. Of course it does.. EVERY form of Socialism ever tried was forced upon the people by Tyrannical Governments like Nazi Germany,, Russia and the People's Republic of China..

    Socialism cannot EXIST without a totalitarian Government..

    Wishing it were different doesn't make it true.. SAYING it's diffeent doesn't convince anyone.. You Democrats will JUST have to go on living with your past.. Nobody else wants it..
  • ProudPr... Hawkeye 2013/01/16 16:10:27
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    They were Right Wing, and they were Conservatives. The Democratic Party was the party of the Conservatives until the 1960s, when they all abandoned the Democratic Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts by LBJ. Byrd renounced his earlier membership in the KKK and devoted the rest of his career to fighting FOR civil rights. Thurmond, on the other hand, abandoned the Democratic party and took his conservative racism right across the aisle where he became the leading Republican Racist Conservative in the nation until his death.
  • Hawkeye ProudPr... 2013/01/16 16:20:41
    Hawkeye
    +1
    Not how it happened but that's okay.. The were both DEMOCRATS when they were Klansmen.. The republcan party was FORMED to abolish Slavery and NEVER allowed for the kinds of racism that the Democrats are INFAMOUS for but,, YOU go ahead and live your fantasies..
  • ProudPr... Hawkeye 2013/01/16 16:35:04
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    You seem to not grasp the fact that "Democrat" and "Republican" are transitory and the positions they represent change over time. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are philosophies, and they remain contact regardless of which party they belong to at any given point in time. Conservatives supported the British in the American revolution. Conservatives started the Civil War. A Liberal freed the slaves. Liberals fought to give women the right to vote. Conservatives fought against it. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act. Conservatives filibustered to try to prevent it.

    Abraham Lincoln was a Liberal. So was Theodore Roosevelt. So was Martin Luther King. Jefferson Davis was a conservative.
  • Hawkeye ProudPr... 2013/01/16 17:20:43
    Hawkeye
    +1
    Yeah Yeah,, SAVE it for the next Klan Meeting Comrade..

    Liberal and Conservative are terms defining tendencies.. YOU try to mix up the Generic Definitions and the Political ones which ARE defined by Philosophies You DO this as though they are interchangable.. They are NOT..

    A Political Liberal can BE Liberal in some things and conservative in others.. Same thing with Political Conservatives..

    the differenc in HOW they choose to approach a situation..


    But TRYas you may to CONFUSE the ISSUE.. the FACTremains that it was the DEMOCRATS who OWNED Slcaves.. The DEMOCRATS who fought FOR Slavery.. The DEMOCRATS who created the KKK when they LOST the War and it is DEMOCRATS even TODAY that ENSLAVE minorities in the entrapment of entitlements and Government Dependency..

    And they DO it for the SAME reasons the Slave Owners used to justify THEIR institution of Slavery.. They DID it for the Blacks' OWN good.
  • princess 2013/01/16 11:29:14
    princess
    +1
    With Liberals/Socialists it's always LIE, DENY & BLAME.
    FACTS & TRUTH don't exist in the low-life Liberal world.
  • Lady Whitewolf 2013/01/16 11:08:41
    Lady Whitewolf
    +2
    Because Clinton left us with a SURPLUS that Bush SQUANDERED on 2 unecessary wars AND the tax cuts for the wealthiest that were **supposed** to "create jobs" AND DIDN'T! Along with deregulating Wall Street AND the Banks.

    The wealthy are crying because they had their little party all this time and now the bill has come due.... AND THEY WANT THE LITTLE GUY TO PAY FOR IT!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/16 04:26:47

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals