It's Bush's Fault!

The day the Democrats took over was not January 20, 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

The Dow Jones Industrials closed at 12,621.77.
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%.
The unemployment rate was 4.6%.
George Bush's economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH.

Remember the day...January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment skyrocketed, adding fuel to this CRISIS coming when gov't (among MANY other things) started dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001- because their actions were financially risky for the US economy. He was IGNORED.

And who took the THIRD highest level of contributions (pay-off) from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA! (Let that sink in for a minute --gov't controlled companies that make campaign contributions!)

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush...REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Budgets are not passed by the White House, only submitted. They come from Congress -- specifically the House of Representatives, when Congress even bothers to take the effort to pass one -- and the party that controlled the House since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first two years, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush (somewhat belatedly) got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is,"I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I worked to expand that deficit four-fold since January 2009."

samhill wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/zelizer-tax-increases/index.html

I think Dann posted a pretty powerful and well reasoned post.

Your response was to post a link to an article on tax increases which you feel is appropriate so my response is to that article. It makes the unwarranted assumption that tax increases increase government revenue. It ignores the effect on the economy of tax increases and also ignores the effect and does not even mention tax increases arbitrarily imposed by government in the form of inflation. Any statement that there have been no tax increases is flat out wrong.

The article tends to put the blame on both sides(unless I posted the wrong one) there was a way out with the bipartisan committee which should have been accepted IMO it would have put us in the right direction. Lets put it this way, how many times in U.S. history has there been tax cuts in time of war? They drastically increased spending while at the same time drastically reducing revenue.

CNN - such a great source of information! Time Warner also gets a lot of it's inspiration from it's other major publication MAD magazine. I find I learn a lot more from that latter source. Is the editorial board the same?

Your right we should rely totally on FOX for the truth.

samhill wrote:They drastically increased spending while at the same time drastically reducing revenue.

Can't argue with you there. Wrong thing to do. I assume the thinking was to expand the economy with cuts and increase revenue in excess of the cuts. I suspect the economy was too close to its limits to do much expanding.

not say the democrats did anything at all but .............. the trickle down economy did not work for the 8 years bush was in office, and they want to try it again.........

So you mean things were "improving" while they were pumping cheap money into the system and inflating the bubble until it burst?

Shocking....

Your right we should rely totally on FOX for the truth.

Sheeple always ask which shepherd to follow. 500,000 people now get there news elsewhere but the that would take original thinking. Its much easier to just keep spewing out my teechers (haha) commie thoughts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - I slay myself.

Haven't watched Fox for over a year. Barely watch any TV anymore. It's amazing how much BETTER news is when you do that.

No more stories about Michelle O's shoes, moonbat Hollywood celebs that I couldn't give 2 shits about, or how perfect & God-like democrats are, as the American economy crashes & burns while our enemies infiltrate our government at the highest levels. Just the HONEST TRUTH with no agenda.

Remember when you could get that from the mainstream media??? I don't - wasn't born yet.

SMITTY wrote:Haven't watched Fox for over a year. Barely watch any TV anymore. It's amazing how much BETTER news is when you do that.

No more stories about Michelle O's shoes, moonbat Hollywood celebs that I couldn't give 2 shits about, or how perfect & God-like democrats are, as the American economy crashes & burns while our enemies infiltrate our government at the highest levels. Just the HONEST TRUTH with no agenda.

Remember when you could get that from the mainstream media??? I don't - wasn't born yet.

so smitty what are your "news sources" ............ i will go with "main stream over conspiracy theories any day of the week... mainstream media does check there facts ever now and then and the democrats are not god like they suck too...... its just to bad the republicans running suck even worse...


i think it was you that bitched about getting fined with the mass health care that Romney did .........

Like I've said a million times, Romney isn't my first choice.

In this election our choice is bad, or real f'ing bad. We already got real f'ing bad so I'll choose bad, thank you very much.

As far as my news sources go, there's no point in revealing that. You lefties can't handle the truth, as evidenced by your "conspiracy theory" labels. Funny how you guys can't see that nearly every single, "conspiracy theory" as the mainstream media called them 2 or 3 years back, has come to fruition one after the other after the other.

Excellent post "Dan" That also corresponds with about the time BHO started to do well in his polling in his first campain. Anyone with any kind of money in the market started to pucker making things even worse. Now we know how it happened, the question is are willing to fix it?

SMITTY wrote:Like I've said a million times, Romney isn't my first choice.

In this election our choice is bad, or real f'ing bad. We already got real f'ing bad so I'll choose bad, thank you very much.

Unfortunately, we ALWAYS have a choice between bad and real f'ing bad.

I wonder why that is?

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.

Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley