Green: Obama is a victim of Bush's failed promises,

The day that Obama was signed in I seen him and Bush walking down the White House side-walk....RIGHT THEN....I knew we had been duped....and duped bad!!! I was soooooo Angry! Here I thought things were going to change....nothing has changed. That's why they killed Kennedy in my heart...he wasn't on the same team.

Bush=Obama!

The first sign I was right...the bail outs! Business as usual.....
The second sign....Wars went on as usual
100,000,000 sign....wars going on as usual...

In my heart....Kennedy was our last great President. He warned of the Military Ind, Complex by name in a speech. Google the speech if you haven't heard it...omg it's like he's talking in our date and time.

Almost every Pres since him...specially since Regan on...(Carter confuses me)...are all apart of the same club. TLC, Bilderburg, Fed, IMF....

The bad boys are in da club....and they ain't messing around!

Bush Regime....check out thier friends since Hilter...it's scary!

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I sure didn't hear Bush blaming Clinton for 3-4 years..and things weren't great. I didn't hear Clinton blaming HW Bush for HIS first 3-4 years although he could have and actually had a valid point for a few things. Somalia comes to mind among other gems HE got stuck with. [...]

This would be the first time I've heard or even read about a President blaming virtually every aspect of his own problems..OVER 3 YEARS into his term and nearly at the end of it, on the last guy.

To wit:

North Korea: Clinton reached a bilateral agreement that failed. -GW Bush

Economy: "Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession." GW Bush

Middle East: "It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called [referring to Clinton's summit] and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intefadeh in the area." GW Bush

Re 9/11 (a three-fer, encompassing Clinton, Carter and Reagan): "They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy." GW Bush

Job losses: "In the last six months of the prior administration, more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. We're turning that around." GW Bush (fun fact, at the time in his administration, there were job losses of 913,000)

Quick google search result

Okay, I'm missing the comparison here. Your examples above are specifically of Bush talking about instances of failures of the past Presidents. He's not blaming whatever problem he was facing that day directly on a past one. In one case he points to a summit that did nothing and factually speaking..I don't recall one under Clinton that did achieve anything lasting. Carter was the true peacemaker on that one even if that's about all I'd give him credit for.

It really is digressing pretty far though and particularly since I'm no Bush defender. I voted for him because I got suckered the first time and didn't feel much choice the second. Dumb and Dumber, flip a coin. It came up Bush for me in 2004. Obama couldn't have done what he did without Bush though, so comparing the two is kinda silly. One led into the other and depended on that.

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


I'm sorry but these 2 statements contradict each other:

signature: HANG THE TRAITORS of the USA... both Republican and Democrat. They are BOTH screwing this country. Our Founding Fathers would have HANGED THEM ALL by now.

If the country had to suffer through ANOTHER Republican in the oval office after idiot Bush and his DISASTROUS 8 years of hell, the country would be in such a MESS that it would require 20 consecutive terms of Democrats in the white house to turn things around. Even SUPERMAN would have great difficulty getting the country fixed from a Republican in Oval Office. Democrats ALWAYS have to CLEAN UP a republican MESS. And then the fools on the Right always ridicule the Democrats claiming that things would have been resolved faster if a Republican was in office instead! WELL...we SEE what Republicans are capable in the oval office... EVERY TIME one is in the oval office we see... ...and its NEVER good. Its never good for the common middle-class American citizen. NEVER. Democrats ALWAYS have to CLEAN up the Republicans MESSES, and the IDIOTS on the Right always blame the Democrat for not CLEANING up the Republicans MESS FAST ENOUGH. The nonsense coming from the Right wingers here NEVER cease to amaze me. Meh, meh, MEH.

So um...... MEH MEH MEH!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wait a minute----you really don't see the comparison? You're arguing that Obama is blaming Bush for things wrong right now, and that that's not fair and no one else ever did that. I brought you examples of Bush blaming Clinton for the problems he was facing then, and you can't see the comparison? Obama is arguing the same thing that Bush did: that Bush made choices and/or failures that brought the situation to the point where it is now, and Obama doesn't deserve all the blame for it. Bush was saying the exact same thing. Obama's criticisms are every bit as valid as Bush's. Clinton blamed Bush Sr, and they were valid too. Obama is no more blaming than pointing out the true history of the situation, just like Bush was. Yes, Clinton failed to broker peace in N Korea and the middle east, and that left Bush with foreign policy issues. Both Clinton and Bush allowed deregulation and the flourishing of the CDS market unchecked, and that left Obama with an economy issue. No, Obama has not solved it, and some of the blame belongs to him, just as it belongs to those who created the situation.

Not acknowledging the state of the economy when President Obama took office is just as dishonest as dishonest as claiming that President Bush is responsible for the recovery of the past 3 years.

Either way, it helps to examine the facts..Assign responsibility any way you like...but remember actual numbers don't have an (r) or (d) beside their name.

Change in Total Private Employment (in thousands), Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

One of my friends just sent this to me in an email...ten seconds later I saw this thread!

How is that for strange?

Originally posted by poet1b

Talk about complete self delusion folks.

Things are better now than when Obama took office.

Obama deserves credit for stopping our slide into economic chaos and getting things turned around. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? Yes, we are.

You keep trying to blame Obama for the state of the economy when Obama took over, and refuse to recognize that things have actually improved under Obama, by besting the odds that pointed to things continuing to go downhill.

Last thing in the world we need is Bush III, which is exactly what Romney would be.

I know Obama blows people up better than Bush EVER could. Not to mention that he runs circles around Bush at declaring war without authorization. Man, I loves me a president that can kill people efficiently and with maximum loss of life.

/TOA

how about this one... Obama and bush both victims of The FEDs failed promises.

there fixed

the only thing that is raising this economy is inflation and people falling off the unemplyeed count sheets.

Originally posted by jerryznv

One of my friends just sent this to me in an email...ten seconds later I saw this thread!

How is that for strange?

AAA Credit rating? You mean the downgrade after the GOP dominated House got everything they wanted?

You do know the downgrade was a result of that deal?

“When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy,” Boehner said in an interview with CBS News on Monday evening.
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Gas???
Cherry Pick Much????



[SNIP]



Mod edit: Removed unnecessary personal comments.

reply to post by Indigo5

SNIP

Nowhere in my post did I agree or disagree with this email...and under no circumstances do I let my political influence come from my email!

Your little off handed side comments...and assumptions...make you sound a bit immature...and quite frankly like a troll!

Your insistent push to make yourself correct and everyone else incorrect only further proves your of the political variety...the worst kind!

Please don't misquote...add your assumptions to my posts...

[SNIP]



Mod edit: Removed off topic comments and a quote of a removed comment.

Originally posted by jerryznv

Nowhere in my post did I agree or disagree with this email...and under no circumstances do I let my political influence come from my email!

Please don't misquote...add your assumptions to my posts...and for civility reasons...SNIP

I'll take you at your word that it was not your intent to promote the spam email you posted and that your posting of it does not mean you believe it.

I apologize for the assumption as well as the joke which was aimed at humor more than a personal attack.



Mod edit: Snipped removed quote

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by jerryznv

One of my friends just sent this to me in an email...ten seconds later I saw this thread!

How is that for strange?

AAA Credit rating? You mean the downgrade after the GOP dominated House got everything they wanted?

You do know the downgrade was a result of that deal?

“When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy,” Boehner said in an interview with CBS News on Monday evening.
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Gas???
Cherry Pick Much????

[SNIP]

 

Mod edit: Removed unnecessary personal comments.

edit on 4/27/2012 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)

Interesting how the loss of the U.S. AAA credit rating is somehow associated to a "GOP dominated House got everything they wanted".

I'm lost on that one.

How exactly did that Boehner "98 percent of what I wanted" cause the downgrade ?

Perhaps you're on to something ?

What did the rating agency "see" ??

reply to post by xuenchen


The rating agency specifically said that the "deal" in which Boehner proclaimed he got "98% of what he wanted" and claimed as a victory...

“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” said the S&P report.

One major factor causing the downgrade was S&P deciding that Congress would likely make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

It is clear from Standard & Poor’s statement downgrading the federal government’s credit rating that it places the blame squarely on Republican actions and policies. Two of S&P’s biggest concerns about whether the United States will pay off its debt are whether Republicans will be so insane as to refuse to lift the debt ceiling, a possibility Republicans intentionally stoked fears of, and whether the United States will raise much-needed tax revenue. Specifically, S&P changed its baseline assumption that the Bush tax cuts would expire on schedule in 2012 because Republicans are so insistent that they must be renewed. “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” wrote S&P. That adds $4 trillion over ten years to the projected deficits.

www.thenation.com...


In short...given that the GOP/TP wing was shouting NOT to raise the debt cieling and the debate nearly scuttled the recovery before the GOP relented was the principle cause.

You can google it all up. The GOP didn't want to raise the cieling and refused to increase revenues. Not only that, but the Dems put forth a LONG TERM plan which S&P preferred, with greater deficet reduction, stability/predicatability for years going forwad, but the GOP could only get backing from a few of the TPers for a short term plan...less reduction...no revenues (let Bush era Tax cuts expire etc.)...another BS debate within a year scaring the economy.

from S&P

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

They were clear about their reasons.

Finally...From the very conservative Business Insider
S&P Favors Reid Plan, Boehner Plan May Result In Losing AAA Status
Read more: www.businessinsider.com...

Again the idea that Pres. Obama is responsible for the downgrade is revisionist history...at the time of the downgrade threats, conservatives acknowledged that the S&P faovored Reids plan and that Boehners plan would result in a downgrade...the s&P said the same...and conservatives were giving the S&P crap about it.

So to pretend that it was Obama's deal, when it was Boehner's "We got 98% of what we wanted" or to pretend that the S&P downgraded the Credit rating because of Obama...all of that is just plain BS.

Hat eon the S&P all you like, I don't like them much, but they were clear about thier reasons.

Originally posted by neo96

4 chances of take Bin Laden out or arresting the inspiration for 9-11

That is on Clinton

Burying your head in the sand and firing cruise missle's "terrorists"

first world trade center bombing
Uss Cole bombing
Nairobi bombing
embassy rocket attack in Beirut
Fuel truck explosion in Saudi Arabia
Care bomb explosion in Saudi Arabia

Clinton owns 9-11

So you dont mind the Bush Administration blaming Clinton for 9-11, but fault the Obama Admin. for doing basically the same thing in relation to the economy as Bush did about National Security?

Originally posted by poet1b
Things are better now than when Obama took office.

OMG that was funny! Things are better now for CHINA ... they own us.

Originally posted by neo96
Clinton owns 9-11

Definately. Clinton spent 8 years downgrading the military and intelligence services. Bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 happened. It was impossible to fix the military and intelligence services in just those 8 months. NOW - it has been almost 4 years with Obama in ... and we are in worse economic shape than before.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Things are better now for CHINA ... they own us.

That is a commonly-repeated misnomer.

The majority of US debt is not owed to China, but to the US.

That is because the majority of US debt is owed to other Americans.

China actually only holds about 8% of US debt:

www.businessinsider.com...-15

Originally posted by FlyersFan
NOW - it has been almost 4 years with Obama in ... and we are in worse economic shape than before.

Yes, because 4 years is plenty of time to fix an economic disaster that took 20+ years to create. You, know, just like it took them less than 4 years to fix the Depression. Sure, this economy is at the total control of the POTUS and congress, not the frigging bankers and unelected economic mobsters. Putting Romney in there----or hell, even Ron Paul-----will just fix it all right up nicely. After all, we don't have three times the size of the global economy in outstanding derivatives. Obama, or any other president, should be able to just fix that right up without collapsing the world's economy. It's your fellow blue-collar Americans' fault for voting for Obama----they screwed your country, not the elite! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Shills.

I think one can blame the first year in office on the last President, but after that I would say good or bad it is all on the new President.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think one can blame the first year in office on the last President, but after that I would say good or bad it is all on the new President.

So did you disagree with Bush blamed Clinton for 9-11, even 5 years later?

Or when Clinton blamed Bush for the first Iraq War, years later?

Or when Reagan blamed Carter for the economy, years later?

etc etc etc

Seems rather reasonable to point out what precipitates a problem. Things do not happen in a vacuum.

Originally posted by 00nunya00

Yes, because 4 years is plenty of time to fix an economic disaster that took 20+ years to create. You, know, just like it took them less than 4 years to fix the Depression.

Sure, this economy is at the total control of the POTUS and congress, not the frigging bankers and unelected economic mobsters. Putting Romney in there----or hell, even Ron Paul-----will just fix it all right up nicely. After all, we don't have three times the size of the global economy in outstanding derivatives. Obama, or any other president, should be able to just fix that right up without collapsing the world's economy. It's your fellow blue-collar Americans' fault for voting for Obama----they screwed your country, not the elite! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Shills.

edit on 28-4-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)

Since the Dem are coming up on owning 12 years out of the last 20 could they not have fixed some of it, or is it all Bush's fault still....lol

Even if we all agree Bush sucked I see things getting exponentially worst though and that is all on Obama's watch.