Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Is This All Bush’s Fault?


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

The Mess and how Obama inherited it This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.

Do not just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 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 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:

The DOW Jones 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... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) 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 it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA 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 do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress 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 year, 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 voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

And where is the RNC and Romney with ads reminding Americans of this every single day. We know it here but until they slap this on the Dem’s from Jan 2007 . . . they will not receive one dime from me. I’ve only donated to Newt since then, well and to Sarah (McCain) and not another dime. I’m so sick of the Blame Bush we hear from the DNC non-stop.


Anonymous said...

Bush committed The US to the ruinous war in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Bush committed The US to the ruinous war in Iraq.

June 20, 2012 1:12 AM"

No, Saddam did by refusing to adhere to several weapons treaties and other treaties that were put in place following the first Iraq war when he invaded Kuwait.

All Bush did was follow though. Would of happened regardless of 9/11, regardless of democrat or republican congress and regardless if Clinton was still President.

The Democrats were for it unto it became unpopular and used it for political expediency to aid their talking points so they had something to nag on about for the presidential 3004 & congressional 2006 elections.

It was also a democrat who first stated that there were ties between certain terrorist groups and Saddam and even tried to link it to 9/11. "Ties" can be interpreted as a very loose term ranging from arms deals to non-aggression pacts. "Enemy of my enemy [..] etc".
This too was likely to "justify" his on going support when facing his democrat electorate.
That last point is speculative on my part.
Though when I heard it, it was in an interview.

As for the end part of your statement:

"ruinous" not on behalf of the U.S. Forces but vastly on the fact that the population has the tendency to blow each other up indiscriminately. And when possible target the so called "infidels" when ever opportune.

It would of made no difference had they taken the most uber political correct route to invasion/liberation/policing/peacekeeping/whatever. Islam is a plague even to itself and is an "abomination of desolation" as it proves itself to be where ever it has taken firm hold. For them, piety is Jihad, be it stealth or through violence. And regardless of our own actions, appeasement only leads to eventual dhimmitude at best...