Users who Dugg This
Shawn-ITC518
5177 Followers
Shawn-ITC518
5177 Followers
Dan Hixson
1605 Followers
Dan Hixson
1605 Followers
Janine Kahn
6178 Followers
apokalyps2547Aug 6, 2010
If the GOP platform remains unchanged, then it seems valid to me.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
The statement is kind of misleading. It's not really Bush "bashing"... its really just reminding them of what Bush did.
The facts speak for themselves.
arschgaudiAug 7, 2010
The Liberals new campaign slogan:
"But...But...Bush"
wosayitAug 7, 2010
Look who's talking, someone with 'Arsch' in their username.
zeitgeist6149Aug 7, 2010
I encourage bringing up what Bush did wrong. But I don't encourage it when used as a defense for Democrats to continue to do wrong. This usually happens when someone criticizes Obama, a Democrat will say, "But Bush did so and so," as if that is a defense for Obama to do wrong.
We need more Bush AND Obama bashing. Obama is just as bad as bad as Bush and has only continued the blazing the Bush Admin trail.
mbtriaAug 7, 2010
Obama is codifying and extending much of Bush's worst damage to the Constitution and the nation.
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
I would agree with you if only I saw anyone saying that.
kamtsaAug 7, 2010
Reminds me the three letter joke
http://www.hmtk.com/archives/33-the-three-letters.html
Obama already opened the first two.
eraptorAug 7, 2010
George Bush wasn't the MAIN problem, his political party, ideology and policies WERE. Furthermore, his crimes against the country would NOT have been achievable without the enormous support of the Republican party and political allies, many of whom are still serving in the Senate and Congress.
The reason they are desperately trying to rebrand George Bush is so they can fall back to the same POLICIES which CREATED our economic collapse. Electing ANY Republican candidate to Congress OR the Senate would amount to sheer insanity AND treason, in light of the party's CURRENT political agenda.
ocyrisAug 8, 2010
Of course just sending any old democrat ain't going to solve the problem either. People really need to look at the issues but fat chance of that happening with modern media feeding frenzies.
eraptorAug 8, 2010
It would if it broke the filibuster stalemate in the Senate by a wider margin. If the Democrat/Republican margin was increased substantially, then the weasels in the Senate (i.e., Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, etc.) couldn't hold progressive legislation hostage to their hidden agendas and favorite campaign contributors.
alanocuAug 6, 2010
I was just looking in the mirror at my hair today and saw a few gray ones. I blame George Bush.
Ok, well, I'm gonna be 40 soon...so maybe not.
s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Pushes_Back_Memoirs_So_GOP_Isn_t_Hurt_In_Midterms_2?t=34192767#c34192767
rudegarAug 7, 2010
blame him!
little Richard got a full head of black and he's pretty old ;)
fearlessfreepAug 7, 2010
I looked in the mirror today
My eyes just didn't seem so bright
I've lost a few more hairs
I think I'm, I'm going bald
mrcacaAug 7, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Is it Bush's fault that you were on the Digg Parrots list?
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Oh look, a Digg Patriot. GTFO
kuattoAug 6, 2010
Most people would concede that George W. Bush has been pretty gracious and classy since the election, not attacking President Obama. But Obama and the Dems use excuse after excuse to go after the former President for almost every problem and then take unfair credit for the achievements in Iraq.
How about running on their ideas instead of giving the people more "duuuurr.. Boooosh!" Perhaps they're trying to distract attention from the ethics charges surrounding Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Weird...because whenever I watch Fox News they tell me that whenever there's good news about the economy or the wars, the credit goes to Bush, but whenever there's bad news about the wars or the economy, it's Obama fault entirely.
oriondrAug 7, 2010
Idk if "excuse" is what I would call setting the country back more than a decade..
It's interesting how quickly people forget what he did to us, and how easily certain people are willing to forgive him since he's shamefully hiding from the public spotlight now.
Android14094Aug 7, 2010
How about a national radio show that's on 3 hours a day, EVERY DAY, bashing former presidents for the last TWENTY years? If you think bashing former presidents is in poor taste, why don't you tell Rush Limbaugh to stop? Jimmy Carter was president over 30 years ago and Rush trots him out every chance he gets.
hipmanAug 7, 2010
He can do whatever he wants.He isn't running for President.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
Neither are most diggers.
danieltttAug 7, 2010
It's that damn freedom of speech thing the left hates so....
nmanguyAug 7, 2010
I'd say that knowing who Jimmy Carter is puts his viewers ahead of most of the under-30 population.
stinkypete312Aug 9, 2010
umm...he's a f**king radio host, not president of the largest free country on the planet.
little bit of a difference there...
zeitgeist6149Aug 7, 2010
Hold up. Nobody should NOT talk about what Bush did because Bush has been polite, post-election.
The issue is whether the Dems should talk, when they are doing the same thing!
ratatratrAug 7, 2010
Bush has been letting Cheney do it for him (the same dynamic they had while in office).
mbtriaAug 7, 2010
Why would Bush complain? Obama is following very much the same courses of action that Bush did. Continued detention without trial. Gitmo is still open. Patriot Act extended. Even greater intimidation and indictments of whistleblowers. Continued black prisons, just not under the management of the CIA. Continued extraordinary rendition because Obama thinks its too useful a tool to give up. Continued abrogation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments. Increasing reactionary Supreme Court. Fewer rights for citizens, more power to the police. Iraq war extended past Bush SOFA deadline. Additional undeclared wars. And so on.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Additional undeclared wars? Pls explain.
mbtriaAug 7, 2010
US Military forces acting in Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, N Korea, a number of nations in South America and Africa.
dangercollieAug 7, 2010
No, they're trying to distract attention from Senator Ensign, the guy who was banging a staffer and then tried to bribe her husband into keeping quiet about it.
Remind me why he's still in office.
And trying to get attention off Senator Vitter banging prostitutes in Louisiana and Washington, D.C.
Remind me why he's still in office.
Until the GOP changes strategists, stops representing Wall Street ahead of Main Street, and gets some intelligent people into office, they're going to remain the party of George Bush, the worst president in the history of the nation.
kamtsaAug 7, 2010
Bush is worst than Obama. First he caused damage on his own and than enabled the rise of Obama.
dwest2Aug 7, 2010
Bush is not "classy", he's irrelevant and would be an enormous negative to his political party if he were to attempt to reenter the public eye.
Also, criticizing his administration is not "bashing". His policies were incredibly stupid and destructive and as a nation we will be paying for them for a long time. True, you have to be forward looking, but you also need to be able to look to the mistakes that got you where you are and honestly characterize them.
magus_melchiorAug 7, 2010
Zeitgeist6149 has it right-- just because Bush hasn't been bashing the Democrats is no reason not to talk about his administration and his policies-- for that matter, Republicans would like us to stop talking about his party.
He may not have been part of the revisionist movement in conservatism, but PLENTY OF HIS STAFFERS HAVE. Dana Perino? Dick Cheney? Hello?!
mnocketAug 6, 2010
I doubt it. Bush bashing got Obama elected. No one can blame Obama for the problems he inherited, but we can judge him on how he has responded to those problems. On this score he has failed. His continued pathetic attempts to blame Bush for those failures is wearing thin.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Yeah. This whole time there is a big red button on his desk that says "Fix Economy" and he hasnt even pushed it! they should get a real patriot in there to just press the button.
its so easy. what a failure Obama has been.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
number23Aug 7, 2010
Well he did get his 1.8 trillion dollar "stimulus" the he promised would result in job creation and that unemployment would not exceed 8%. Can I hold him accountable for that?
arschgaudiAug 7, 2010
Obama's actions in the Gulf are a shining example of his inability to do anything more than utter rhetoric. Oh, and close the barn door after the horse got out.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
No because that number was an ESTIMATE and was ALWAYS called an esitmate except by your fake news and pundits.
number23Aug 7, 2010
So Capt' are you calling the nearly 2 trillion dollar "stimulus" a success?
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
"So Capt' are you calling the nearly 2 trillion dollar "stimulus" a success?"
I am. And so is Moody's: "The fiscal stimulus also fell short in some
respects, but without it the economy might still be in recession. Increased unemployment insurance benefits and other transfer payments and tax cuts put cash into households’ pockets that they have largely spent, supporting output and employment."
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf?L=HPADV2&C=ZANDIBLINDER&P=LEARNMORE
And so are others:
http://www.slate.com/id/2245048
Of course you could keep believing in the tax cut fairy, or you could listen to those who know.
"Congress should let all of former president George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire to cut the long-term budget deficit, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan has said." from the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1cd58e8c-9130-11df-b297-00144feab49a.html
payments and tax cuts put cash into house-
holds’ pockets that they have largely spent,
supporting output and employment.
The fiscal stimulus also fell short in some
respects, but without it the economy might
still be in recession. Increased unemploy-
ment insurance benefits and other transfer
chrysaliiAug 7, 2010
...time to get Staples to run the country.
number23Aug 7, 2010
You bring up an interesting pointFr33th0t, how do the Bush tax cuts compare to Obozo's stimulus?
http://ezinearticles.com/?2003-Bush-Tax-Cuts-Vs-2009-Obama-Stimulus-Package---16-Month-Results&id=4595611
Net Jobs Gained or Lost 16 Months After Each Initiative
2003 Bush Tax Cuts--Gained (plus) +1.4 Million
2009 Obama Stimulus--- Lost (minus) -2.6 Million
Excluding Temporary Census Bureau Workers Hired in 2009-2010, net jobs lost under The Obama stimulus have actually been 2.9 Million
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
The above figures include all monthly revisions through May of 2010 and the net figure of census workers, hired and laid off. The number hired was 564,000 minus 225,000 laid off in June.
16 Month Comparison: Unemployment Rate
2009 Obama Stimulus 9.5%
2003 Bush Tax Cuts 5.7%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Dept. of Labor
Past, post-recession numbers have been not only been far better than these, the gains made, have come much sooner than these, without taking 1 penny of taxpayers' hard earned dollars. Claims that these present negative stats are less negative, than they were 16 months ago, is pathetic spin.
This proves one of two things. Either the administration didn't know what it was doing then, or it was intent on grabbing every dollar it could for redistribution, along with the enormous power it gives to government, and the votes it can buy.
16 Month Comparison: Disposable Personal Income--Per Capita
(Every Man, Woman and Child)
BUSH (plus) + $758
Obama (plus) + $82
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce
For a family of three this translates to $2,274 under the Bush initiative and $246 under President Obama.
16 Month Comparison: Average GDP Growth
Bush 2003 Tax Cuts--4.05%
Obama 2009 Stimulus--2.45%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) U.S. Dept. of Commerce
captobliviousAug 8, 2010
@Number23,
You got buried (without being read) at obozo.
Fail again please.
number23Aug 8, 2010
Not the least bit surprised Capt'n, I know how important it is for you libs to assiduously avoid opinions different from your own.
iforgotaboutitAug 10, 2010
I had no idea fixing the economy would be so easy.
wf80diditAug 7, 2010
People can blame Bush all they want, but the fact remains we elected Obama because he promised to fix everything.
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
Everything the Republicans broke.
dangercollieAug 7, 2010
Republicans blamed Clinton for their problems up until 2008.
danieltttAug 7, 2010
Citation please.
starlessknightAug 7, 2010
danielttt: "A person who joined Digg on June 1st, 2007"
That'd explain it. I suggest people pull out some threads, sites, and other sources.
/No one ever took "b-b-but Clinton" seriously, FYI.
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
Citation?
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/06/30/jon_stewart_nails_right_wings_blame_clinton_hypocrisy.php
drmangrumAug 7, 2010
I like to think of it like this:
If you were hired on for a job and you continually tell your boss that your lack of progress is due to your inept predecessor, your boss would have every right to begin looking for another person to take the job and fire your ass.
Obama should have long ago extricated himself from the Bush Bashing Bandwagon. He's not stuck in the rut and can't escape. What he fails to realize is that people are noticing that he's not putting forth any good ideas of his own, just pointing out that republicans are "obstructionist."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
I like to think of it like this:
If you are hired to fix the mess left by your predecessor and his lackeys are running around blaming you for the mess, or because the mess isn't fixed yet, or because you didn't follow the same failed logic of your predecessor, you should smack them down with a healthy dose of reality. Especially when all they do is say "No" to everything you try to do (even when some of those things were your own ideas).
beratebirthersAug 7, 2010
Truth hurts, doesn't it right-wingers? Face it, everything today is Bush's fault.
jacksons98Aug 7, 2010
What about the left-wing Democrat congress that was in office during Bush's last term?
Do they get off scott free because you a liberal?
azwethinkweizmAug 7, 2010
They get off scott free because they couldn't do jack s**t with a lame duck president.
jacksons98Aug 7, 2010
@azwethinkweizm
Your right Bush threatened to veto most of their spending, which is why they just waited for Obama. First thing they did was spent over a trillion dollars on pet projects under the guise of stimulus bill.
And the truth of government is it's best when they can't do jack s**t. Anytime the government gets s**t done it's costs me and you a lot of money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
You mean the last year of Bush's 8 year presidency?
arschgaudiAug 7, 2010
Liberals: Those that can't blame it on Bush.
orangetideAug 7, 2010
everything? I'm pretty sure our prison system was in sorry shape long before Bush.
While Clinton balanced the budget we still had a huge national debt before Bush (or Clinton or HW Bush or Reagen...)
There is something fundamentally wrong with the American political system. And I'm going to blame it on this right-wing versus left-wing bulls**t. I propose that we kick all you left/right wing asshats out the country so the rest of us can move on.
beratebirthersAug 7, 2010
What the hell does our prison system have to do with deregulation and other failures of the "free" market?
orangetideAug 8, 2010
he said everything, so that really opens up the topic.
mschase1972Aug 7, 2010
There is blame-shifting and then there is responding to attacks. Right wing attacks on President Obama, blaming him for the unemployment caused by the recession that began in 2007, need to be responded to. How has President Obama responded? He has got the job done for his constituents, getting decent legislation passed that addresses core problems that led to the recession (i.e. financial regulatory issues and exploding health care inflation). The stimulus law, as stated by economists from both the right and the left, kept the recession from becoming both deeper and longer.
The answer is simple; you don't want Bush blamed for his eight years of failed policies, then don't attack President Obama for the detritus left in the wake of those policies.
yurmutha412Aug 7, 2010
The solutions really haven't worked, though. Health care costs aren't changing and no one believes they will change. However, the amount of paperwork that small businesses have to do because of it has increased, making them even more reluctant to hire new workers. The middle class tax cut, which was supposed to spur the economy, really hasn't worked either. Most people weren't even aware of it yet it caused a large increase in the national debt. There aren't any more jobs caused by these middle class people supposedly buying more with their tax cuts, and the price of that is to drop the capital gains taxes this year, which are directly related to business investments. Also the Dems don't take responsibility for stopping the Republicans from doing something about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2001, when they killed a bill to reduce their size, saying they were both financially sound. Both companies kept growing to enormous size and helped fuel the housing boom, and we still pay billions every quarter because of them when the banks have already started paying back the money they owe.
offrdbanditAug 7, 2010
You mean the same unemployment that would never exceed 8% under Obama's watch?
That unemployment?
Jordan117Aug 7, 2010
False. From PolitiFact:
* * *
George Will: Obama said stimulus would cap unemployment at 8 percent
Will didn't use the word "promise" as Cantor did when we checked the same claim a year ago, but the meaning is the same, that Obama was offering some sort of guarantee the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. The administration never characterized it that way and included plenty of disclaimers saying the predictions had "significant margins of error" and a higher degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." In short, it was an economic projection with warnings of a high margin for error, not a take-it-to-the-bank pledge of an upper limit on unemployment. So we find Will's claim Barely True.
* * *
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/13/george-will/will-obama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/
vbdonAug 7, 2010
Republican blame Obama for increased debt without purpose, increasing the unemployment rate from 6.5 to 9.5%, weak foreign policy, pro-drug cartel immigration policy, avoiding problems by always being on vacation, trying to increase unemployment even more, destroying the healthcare system, and general incompetence. All in all, Bush looks like a genius compared to Obama and as long as democrats keep bringing up the contrast between the two, Republican will keep sweeping the polls.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
Ahhh, I see the logic to your reasoning. You must be right. Probably explains why Bush is so beloved these days and why he is not scared to publish his book during the election season instead of after like some spineless chicken. Oh, wait....
leftiscorruptAug 7, 2010
The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. They share the blame for anything that occurred in 2007.
youareretardedAug 7, 2010
Sure they do, why do you think congress as a whole has had some of the lowest favoribility ratings in history?
But s**t didn't all of the sudden start going down hill in 2006-7 simply because democrats took power.
soc7Aug 7, 2010
The question to me is whether or not President Obama/Congress will be able to have some sort of impact in turning the economy around before the blame Bush strategy wears itself out. In a perfect world I would rather fix the problem and not the blame because all this partisan sniping is self destructive to all of us. Yes, I know, I play too.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
If you cant see the economy is already turning around its only because you are willfully blind.
drmangrumAug 7, 2010
Yup, 161,000 jobs lost last month. Economy sure is turning around.
fr33th0tAug 7, 2010
"Total nonfarm payroll employment declined by 131,000 in July, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Federal government employment fell, as 143,000 temporary workers hired for the decennial census completed their work. Private-sector payroll employment edged up by 71,000." (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fnews.release%2Fpdf%2Fempsit.pdf&ei=OsJdTL2REI70swOfw6GqCw&usg=AFQjCNFzloU0TYyxyw-yv6dI51s0y7d2rQ)
captobliviousAug 8, 2010
Because you are both stupid enough to think that recovery is a straight line even while dragging the republicans along kicking and screaming NO at every opportunity?
Please, you are making republicans look bad.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
The economy is, in fact, turning around.
soc7Aug 7, 2010
I didn't mean to imply that the economy was not turning around. This is obvious.
phillaholicAug 7, 2010
Thank you for including congress soc7. A lot of people seem to forget, it's been congress who can't seem to pass anything worthwhile. If they can't get a bill passed on 9/11 worker's healthcare are they going to save the much more complicated economy?
captobliviousAug 8, 2010
That would be because republicans vote in a bloc, while democrats vote their conscience.
Please take note that the republicans screwing about with "procedure" and attempting to add to the bill caused it to fail, A simple up or down vote was called for and defeated by the republicans.
And they think that that will get them re-elected! Fools, don't they know that now, We The PEOPLE can actually SEE what they are doing?
phillaholicAug 9, 2010
@CaptOblivious Though the Dems decided to bypass the Republicans adding anything to the bill, then failed to get enough votes to pass it that way. Pretty stupid.
fissiongrubbsAug 7, 2010
As long as Republicans continue to embrace Bush principles and ideals of favoring corporatism and the rich over the voting constituency, I don't think "Bush bashing" CAN wear itself out. I think the People will demand representative government to serve them until they get it.
photojustinAug 7, 2010
Any time a GOP-er brings up unemployment, financial meltdown, and budget deficits, then yes, Bush should be brought up. He brought us the financial meltdown which created the unemployment and he ran up a huge deficit on wars and tax cuts. If we had the extra few trillion laying around that Bush burned up with his trickle-down disaster, we might be able to do a stimulus on the scale our economy actually calls for.
So yes, Bush is a valid point because the GOP is offering nothing but more of Bush's policies.
yurmutha412Aug 7, 2010
There are really no economists that actually blame trickle down for what happened to the economy. The point made about it is that it doesn't increase the GDP enough to pay for it. Many economists agree that it does actually spur growth in the GDP, however.
During the Regan years, the GDP did an average 3.5 percent growth during the tax cuts and set a record, however, the deficit increased, so although not effective as permanent strategy without spending cuts, it does work as an economic growth catalyst. Bush installed even further cuts after the dot com bust, and the GDP did recover for a while, only we ended up with a housing boom. I guess we'll see what happens when and if they are left to expire, but I personally think it's going to have a negative effect on job growth, and it's anemic already.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
Trickle down has not created a single job in the 30+ years it has been being tried, it is a HUGE part of what brought our country to the brink of ruin.
It has benefited NO ONE but the upper 5% richest in the country.
Even Greenspan thinks you are wrong and has called for the bush tax cuts to be be allowed to expire.
yurmutha412Aug 7, 2010
"It has benefited NO ONE but the upper 5% richest in the country."
That's ridiculous. The venture capital funds are all based on capital gains. Without venture capital funds there would basically be no business start ups. All business start ups hire employees. You are basically saying that private enterprise doesn't create jobs, since businesses are all based on capital gains. The only jobs that aren't created by capital gains are government jobs. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
falstaffAug 7, 2010
What happened to the economy is really rather simple. Loads of people and large financial institutions took on too much debt that ended up blowing up in their faces.
You can talk about obscure credit swaps that hit the back end of those debt deals pretty hard, but the starting point was that interest rates were too low, and lead many people into buying more than they could afford, just because it was a "good deal."
The Fed caused this, not a political party.
fearlessfreepAug 7, 2010
Bingo, this is the result of the law of unintended consequences piling up over many years going back well before Bush in which the presidents of both parties had very little real influence. For the Democrats and Obama to hang it all around Bush's neck and the years of just his presidency is just political fear-mongering and it's very disingenuous.
Which is ironic because just as one president didn't cause in in eight years, on president can't fix it in two
captobliviousAug 8, 2010
It's been a pretty clear path from Regan on to deregulate the banks and gut the glass stegall act, and THAT is what has allowed the banks to go back to the wild west behavior that we are currently suffering from.
I would also point out that the BANKERS themselves were the ones that were SUPPOSED TO BE RESPONSIBLE to NOT give loans to those that could not pay them back, no matter the interest rate.
Here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
and here,
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/redpill-economics-for-the-elec.php
Jordan117Aug 7, 2010
In what way is the 2010 Republican platform a departure from the Bush Administration's failed policies? We tried tax cuts, cowboy diplomacy, and laissez-faire regulation for eight years, and all we got was a huge economic collapse, a bigger deficit, two mishandled wars, and a catastrophic oil spill. Now the Republicans are trying to pin the mess on Obama and block his attempts at remedy with everything in their power, all while advocating for a return to the same tax-slashing, de-regulating, anti-intellectual bulls**t that America soundly rejected less than two years ago.
dayal911Aug 7, 2010
Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts caused the financial meltdown of the worlds economy. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the two are related. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Jordan117Aug 7, 2010
I didn't directly connect those two. The Bush tax cuts more directly contributed to our massive deficit, which makes it pretty disingenuous for Republicans to want an extension on them while simultaneously posing as deficit hawks.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036
As for the cause of the meltdown, I'd pin that on the laissez-faire regulation, though that was more a problem endemic to the global financial culture than to America. Bush's lax regulatory attitude certainly didn't help, though.
dayal911Aug 7, 2010
Deregulation of derivatives and Glass-Stegall happened under Clinton.
Yes, having a massive deficit is bad, I agree. Obama's doing the same thing, remember that.
All you've done is cite partisan articles that attack articles from other partisan sources.
These articles are about the deficits with budgets. The deficits did NOT cause the housing meltdown and did NOT cause the world's financial system to collapse.
We know Bush created a deficit, that's nothing new. Neither of these articles adequately explain how the deficit caused the above issues.
Did you even read the articles, or did you just run a Google search to only find articles from partisan organizations?
youareretardedAug 7, 2010
And it was a republican congress that held a majority in both the house and senate.
ocyrisAug 8, 2010
"laissez-faire"
You have no idea what that is. You like to think you do but you don't.
Jordan117Aug 8, 2010
laissez-faire (n.)
1. the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.
2. the practice or doctrine of noninterference in the affairs of others, esp. with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action.
* * *
Given those definitions, how is stringent Republican opposition to the bailouts, the stimulus package, and government intervention in general not a form of laissez-faire capitalism? The GOP is always vilifying regulation and government spending and saying failing businesses should be allowed to fail, no matter what the economic consequences may be.
propethicAug 7, 2010
Really CNN? Are these "weary voters" really that fickle?
noctuAug 7, 2010
not on Digg
chileangodAug 7, 2010
It's necessary to bash him? He did more that enough just by himself.
rudegarAug 7, 2010
will his memoirs be the knock-out uppercut ?
cayfoxAug 7, 2010
Republican revisionists and people with short memories may need the occasional reminder that America's current problems didn't begin on January 20, 2009.
niradgAug 7, 2010
The GOP platform hasn't changed since the Bush years, and one of the biggest issues in this election year is whether or not to renew Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republican Congress and Bush put himself on the ballot when they made these tax cuts expire in 2010- by which point they were supposed to have created a new era of unparalleled prosperity through trickle-down economics. How'd that work out for ya?
dayal911Aug 7, 2010
Please explain to me how the Bush tax cuts caused the financial meltdown of the worlds economy and how it caused the housing market to collapse in the US.
Nobody has been able to explain that to me because, to be honest, the tax cuts weren't the reason the economy tanked.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
Geithner said tax cuts are bad, it must be true! /s
marx2kAug 7, 2010
You just asked that upthread and got an explanation. Are you just going to keep asking without responding to people who have already answered your question?
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
So which side are you on, Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich?
caferrellAug 7, 2010
Can I choose neither of the above?
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
But one is clearly better than the other! Why would you want to throw your vote away? :P
stubearAug 7, 2010
No, but pushing for things like a Public Option instead of bending over and taking it up the ass from the GOP certainly would. Grow some balls and start challenging the Republican'ts on these issues. Stop letting these jackasses hijack every decisive issue and set the agenda for the discussion moving forward.
kalvinbAug 7, 2010
It's been two years. Other countries are well on the road to recovery in that time frame.
Bush raised our national debt 77% in 8 years. Obama has raised it 33% in 2 years and is on track to double it in 6.
While Obama is busy blaming Bush for our debt, he and his democrat cronies are just using it as an excuse to justify their own out of control spending. Who, by the way, were in control of both houses (and hence spending) since 2006.
Republicans were kicked out of office in droves for their out of control spending. Apparently Democrats didn't get the lesson.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
The US will be permanently stained by its murder of innocents and the double standard it places on human life.
arschgaudiAug 7, 2010
"The US government is permanently stained by its murder of innocents and the double standard it places on human life. These are thing that can't be wiped away"
God damn that's funny. Did you make that up yourself or was it something you heard down at the school union?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
By all means, see if you can justify the Iraq war. If you can manage that, maybe we can go through some of the false flag wars.
arschgaudiAug 7, 2010
Those civilians were the enemy. Strategic warfare means destroying the enemy's infrastructure and demoralizing the population. Whether that was done with one nuclear weapon or a 1000 bombers is immaterial.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusAug 7, 2010
Are you quoting Bin Laden there? Because that is EXACTLY the excuse he uses for 9/11. In fact, throw a few 'allah grants' and 'allah willing's in there an it's almost the same words.
mcquittyAug 7, 2010
Yes, it reminds me of a husband complaining that the wife ran up the credit card bill and him spending even more to get even.
arschgaudiAug 7, 2010
Works for me.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
When you run up a debt on a credit card bill, you do have to pay back that debt to get even....
mcquittyAug 7, 2010
Exactly. But, in the end, the easy thing about "our government debt" is that while "no one" has to pay it back, "every one" does. It's much easier to spend someone else's money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepAug 7, 2010
Very poor analogy. How about the husband and wife are out of job and have to use the credit cards to pay the electric/gas bill, mortgage and a new suit to go to interviews to get a job before they lose the house.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusAug 7, 2010
That's not a problem. Once the couple have all the crap they want they can just borrow the money from China and let their grandkids pay off the tab. It's the American way!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fissiongrubbsAug 7, 2010
WRONG. Democrats were "in charge" of NO spending during Warhead. After not vetoing a SINGLE Republican spending bill until 2006, Democrats could not get a single spending bill passed without a veto and Republicans "do it our way or the highway" refused to compromise on anything. Do it their way or nothing, just like they're trying as hard as they can right now to continue.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theswashbucklerAug 7, 2010
"Obama has raised it 33% in 2 years and is on track to double it in 6."
Bulls**t.
Obama's first year was a Bush budget.
roguegeniusAug 7, 2010
And every year since has been in the debt hold Bush dug and in the s**tty economy he was left.
It's a good deal being a Republican. You just have to f**k things up so badly it take years into the democratic administration to straighten it out... and they you get to blame them! And the American people are too stupid to see that is what you've been doing for the last 20 years!
pinktacodiggerAug 7, 2010
Forget Bush. Yea he was a terrible prez, but now that doesn't matter.
1. Democrats just need to speak LOUDER. Make your talking points simple, and get it out. Wash, rinse and repeat until you drill it into the brains of the moderates.
2. Don't fish in the Republican/Teabagger pond. They're not going to vote for you no matter what you say or do.
3. Grow a spine and stand by your principles. Goddammit, fight already for God's sake.
4. Liberals need to shut up and stand together. If you're losing hope in this President because you're angry he's not 'progressive' enough, then look back at the Bush years.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
I wish I could digg you up ten times PinkTacoDigger
leftiscorruptAug 7, 2010
The Democrats are NOT spineless.
They are NOT being Bipartisan.
They are SOLD the f**k OUT to the same rich bastards the Republicans are sold out to.
Learn the difference.
The Republican senior drug benefit made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices because the Republicans are sold out to the drug companies.
The Democrat's "Health Care Reform" also made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices because the Democrats are sold out to the drug companies.
Despite the fact that President Obama campaigned on exactly this issue.
thomasmcAug 7, 2010
All the Dems need to do is remind the voters that the GOP blocked medical funding for 9/11 heroes.
The Party of No is about as unAmerican as you can get.
femgineer08Aug 7, 2010
I'm so pissed at the way 9/11 has been used as a political tool. Many GOPers talk about "Real America" and imply that I'm not a real American because I'm from a big city. I almost blew a fuse when the bill didn't pass and then powerful GOPers had the nerve to be so vocal about the mosque near Ground Zero!
f**k. Now I'm so angry the room is spinning.
timetheosAug 7, 2010
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/i-give-up---9-11-responders-bill
JS nails it.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Let's also not forget http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143164/30_gop_senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/
magus_melchiorAug 7, 2010
Let's also keep reminding voters that the GOP wants to extend the tax cuts on the super-wealthy to the tune of several trillion dollars in government debt, while at the same time pissing on the feet of those who are out of work and desperately need assistance.
pinchduckAug 7, 2010
Yes, in that I won't vote for the Republicans. No, in that I won't vote for the Democrats (who had the majority in the Congress and gave Bush everything he asked for? The Democrats). I will vote third party. My guys will lose, but hopefully one more person jumping from the two-party duopoly will inspire others.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
I'll just go ahead and vote for the best of the choices I'm given, regardless of party
joculatorAug 7, 2010
I don't see the harm in reminding people how horrible the previous administration was. The great challenge to the DNC is fighting the tidal wave of GOP media and establishing a platform that appeals to the average American.
leftiscorruptAug 7, 2010
The great challenge to the DNC is that everyone knows they sold out Americans to the Insurance Industry, right after they promised to break the power of the special interests.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch2.html
joculatorAug 8, 2010
Great link. Something or someone has to break the link between corporate influence and public representation. The basic problem is that money = political influence in society. Even idealists seem to become corrupt given long enough.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
They have to try something. They certainly can't point to any results of their policies. Couple that with the growing backlash of HCR and they are in serious trouble.
However, I really don't think people are looking to the Republicans for any answers either. I think people are so fed up with Washington that a lot of voters will just stay home on election day.
offrdbanditAug 7, 2010
Sure. Go ahead. Complaints about Bush highlight the Obama's incompetence.
mikkyfinnAug 7, 2010
Since the entire Republican strategy has been to attack the job Obama is doing in office as opposed to actually coming up with any ideas that are different than Bush..I think it is very important for the short sighted american public to constantly be reminded of what horrors can befall this republic when Neo-Con MICs are in controll.
hipmanAug 7, 2010
Um, they aren't the ones in power.I see no problem with that.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
And the GOP won't be for at least three generations,
Everyone now alive that knows that the republicans are nothing but a bunch of corpofacists will have to get alzheimer's or die before power is given back to the republican party.
Better than that the teabaggers are INSURING that the GOP loses an many races, GO Teabaggers!
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Their not being in the majority isn't an excuse for them to vote against the interest of the American public.
partrowAug 7, 2010
That is all the Dems have left.
What does that tell us?
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
That some people can find the redeeming qualities between two different piles of s**t coming from the same orifice.
caferrellAug 7, 2010
President Bill Clinton's mentor Carroll Quigley summed up our political system perfectly in his book "Tragedy and Hope," writing:
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 that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
diggerlaterAug 7, 2010
Clinton is good statesman, not a brilliant political philosopher.
dayal911Aug 7, 2010
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the tax cuts caused the financial markets around the world to collapse.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the tax cuts created the housing bubble, which is a key reason we were in a recession.
Nobody has ever been able to explain that to me. It's quite obvious that the tax cuts were not the reason, or the catalyst, that the World's economy tanked.
stavrogin2Aug 7, 2010
If you want to pay for the deficit, please explain how keeping these tax cuts will help do that.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
That's easy, jobs, jobs, jobs.
If you scare the beejesus out of employers or make their future uncertain, guess what they do?
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
The deficit implies they're over-spending. The fact that the national debt isn't a priority is also telling.
Yeah, if you let people keep more of their own money, that necessarily means there will be less for politicians and bureaucrats to waste.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dayal911Aug 7, 2010
Getting rid of our giant overseas empire is a good start.
We need to cut excess spending, not just stupid small things. We need to really fix our foreign policy, which is a giant source of our expenses.
cosmicsurferAug 9, 2010
YOU DON'T cut taxes in a depression and trickle down doesn't work - the two TRUTHS in Economy.
The "tax cuts" that all the RWNJs and the Grand Old Pariah keep orgasming over have NOTHING TO DO with 80%-90% of the population...It is ONLY the top 10% of the people in this country who got them and that are paying everybody they can to buy the cuts into perpetuity.
But reality is NOT home to RWNJs.
They can't see it from there
blitz9200Aug 7, 2010
You need to give people time to respond. You've made the same comment at least 3 times in 3 minutes. Jordan117 responded only 10 minutes after one of your post.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
Why don't you check to see if they have their hall pass?
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
What is there to bash about Bush that wouldn't also be relevant to the Obama administration? Really, what nit-picky little things do people want to bring up while ignoring the growing trend of authoritarianism?
mredofcourseAug 7, 2010
Fair or not, if Dems can show a perceived or actual progress on issues from the time Obama took office, they should use those issues to bash Bush, but to do so in a way that reflects on the Republican party as a whole. And add a little Sarah Palin in there to top it off in case there's any doubt.
One reason why this will work so well in the midterms this time is that Republicans in Congress have been so united in their voting.
So as a whole the Dems can spend money and resources on the messaging on a national level and then locally it can be focused on the specific races.
rahazAug 7, 2010
Probably but I'd prefer if they actually talk about stuff that they did right instead of what the other side did wrong.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
In the end, Republicans and Democrats can both fall back on the same crutch: As long as they can get you to believe that they are necessary, the bulls**t will continue.
rahazAug 7, 2010
They are necessary simply because there is no other option. In the end the majority of politicians will inevitably belong to one of those 2 parties because there aren't enough good 3rd party options.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
Most people end up switching their vote at the last minute for the lesser evil because they're looking for what they perceive as the most likely to win the vote.
Believing there is no other option is the big lie in politics. The false dichotomy of choice begins when they say "these are your choices". This goes beyond voting.
volfie99Aug 7, 2010
Will CNN ever be relevant in the news department ever again?
marx2kAug 7, 2010
CNN International, World is pretty good.
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/
wosayitAug 7, 2010
Digg needs to come clean on how they're going to deal with the Digg Patriots. This s**t has gone on for way too long now.
isenborgAug 7, 2010
You are so right. This is the very first time strategic organizing has been used on DIGG. LMFAO. How naive and biased can you be?
drmobutuAug 7, 2010
Hey, if you think you are better off for the eight years of Bush, by all means go ahead and vote for the Republicans again...some lessons are best learned the hard way...
noctuAug 7, 2010
I don think we were better off 8 years ago anymore than we are now over all
zoomigoAug 8, 2010
Hmmm, I'm way better off now than I was in 2000. I managed to start a business, pay off (most of) my credit debts (about $80k), bought 3 cars, two houses, a motorcycle and saved for retirement.
I'm in survival mode now, tho. No way I am spending any money, or buying anything new until I see where this administration is taking the economy. Hell, I even shut down my business and took a job with someone else because I didn't like what I saw coming.
drmobutuAug 9, 2010
Let me deduce your former occupation: bought all that stuff, paid off all that debt in ten short years, saved for retirement, but now in survival mode...I have it!
You're an ex-mortgage broker!
zoomigoAug 9, 2010
Close, but not quite. I work on network backbones, wiring, maintenance and distribution.
dumbcommentguyAug 7, 2010
If Obama and the democrats had accomplished anything worthwhile in the last 18 months, they wouldn't have to resort to blaming anyone else to get re-elected!
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
Buried for common sense? How awesome is that?
Good ideas are axiomatically validated.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/
Serious question... do you see any of these as being worthwhile?
dumbcommentguyAug 7, 2010
I went thru most of the list. Sure there are a few good things in there - for example: #s 125, 346, 380, 391, and especially #502, just to name a few.
There are several items that were included in the health care that are great accomplishments if enacted by themselves. A significant number of items on the list are nothing more than fluff and waste of tax money.
Also, this is a list of "promises kept" which does not necessarily make them "worthwhile accomplishments" for the good of the country.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Your 3rd paragraph I agree with. The only reason I linked that site is that's the only source I have off hand that shows things that have been done since Obama took the helm. Good on you for being impartial to actual facts :D
dirkniblickAug 7, 2010
I don't think bashing Bush will win them much of anything considering how badly they've screwed up healthcare, financial reform, etc. The Democrats have done little with the gains they won two years ago to be proud of and I feel, as someone who voted for Obama, that he's done a poor job of getting the things he said he'd do actually done.
But, can anyone point out anything, ANYTHING, positive that Bush did in his 8 years in office that made the lives of, well, anyone better? Anything he SHOULD be proud of?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
He left.
dirkniblickAug 7, 2010
Moments? That man couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.
peppermintpigAug 7, 2010
Certainly, he's had a plethora of such moments. Usually whenever he opened his mouth. Why is our children not learning. Put food on your family. Etc...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
"That man couldn't pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel."
That's... Actually pretty damn funny.
m1ntb3rrycrunch Aug 7, 2010
In bashing Bush, wouldn't most Democrats be bashing Obama too? From the wars, to the patriot act, to gay marriage, to spending, they're not that much different.
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Iraq 'war' drawing down, Afghanistan 'war' has timeline, patriot act (agreed), gay marriage.. do you want the feds involved in that?.. spending is questionable considering a lot of the spending is still paying the tab for the previous admin.
captobliviousAug 7, 2010
You know, making sure no one forgets just how horribly BAD a job the republicans (bush included) did of running the country when they had power seems like a winning strategy to me.
The bottom line is that as bad as you all are trying to make the democrats and President Obama out to be, they are STILL better than the republicans that put us here. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
blitz9200Aug 7, 2010
Republicans smear campaign completely overshadows every thing positive about them. Why do they need to smear and lie so much if they have done a good job at running the country?
Say what you want about the Democrats, but i bet Republicans are banking on a split vote to take back the majority. They have they're hardcore base (Like the D ick P irates).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
noctuAug 7, 2010
bashing bush and obama is kinda old and non productive its time to consider other options that will be more productive.
lemonproxAug 7, 2010
Bush bashing sounds dirty
polartxAug 7, 2010
Its actually pretty pathetic to watch the Commander in Chief still making excuses by referencing the administration over two years ago
simunsezAug 7, 2010
Particularly since they've controlled the Congress for 4 years ...
marx2kAug 7, 2010
Because all current events happen in a vacuum, yes?
wsteeleAug 7, 2010
Yeah I can't even remember back that far.
vbdonAug 7, 2010
This definitely helps any Republican candidate. When people who are undecided go to the polls, they will likely vote for anyone who isn't Bush or Obama!!! Why vote for someone everyone criticizes when you can vote for the unknown (Republican Candidate for President). No on can be worse than Obama.
tenrecAug 7, 2010
Will Bush-bashing help Democrats win over weary voters?
No. Bush-bashing has been in high gear since November 2002 and it has become just a blah-blah-blah-blah noise to the voters. Democrats know that they can't win running on their record but it is all they have to run on. Wonder if they have an October surprise planned.
fearlessfreepAug 7, 2010
Hmmm..no love for Rush today...
isenborgAug 7, 2010
No hope. No change.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
So we should let Bush off the hook if Republicans cease to attack Obama for problems Bush created and dramatically increased?
I say f**k that! We need to make sure everyone knows and remembers the horrendous policies Bush pushed upon America. During his administration, we lost countless liberties in the pursuit of 'security from terrorists.' That is a pipe dream and as such, lost a lot and gained very little. Let his presidency be the black mark in recent American history as a reminder of how quickly this nation can fall. Failing this and we are doomed to the fate of the Romans and we all know the outcome of that.
simunsezAug 7, 2010
It's not about Bush anymore. We've had this Congress since 2006 and they are doing permanent damage to the country with their spending, their forced healthcare insurance on young people and their attempt to raise the cost of everything with cap and trade. They refuse to deal with illegal immigration and would raise taxes with unemployment at 10%.
They have to be stopped
dalittleAug 7, 2010
no mention of FISA, the patriot act (that is anything, but patriotic), unnecessary wars with huge spending requirements?
dalittleAug 7, 2010
uh, yes. When conservatives do nothing else, but obstruct anything from happening, and reflect how you think bush was great (even though he screwed the country in more ways than one), pointing that out to people is a natural thing to do.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
californicationAug 7, 2010
It's that dag-blasted William McKinley's fault! His policies have ruined this nation!
Dems might as well be saying.
danieltttAug 7, 2010
If Bush were a worse president than obama, it might work....obama makes Bush look stellar in comparison.
zubataAug 7, 2010
If only the Democrats were smart enough to see that..............
scabnabbitAug 7, 2010
If you love Bush so much ask him to move in with you.
DFW doesn't want him. It embarrassing to have him here.
danieltttAug 8, 2010
As I said, obama makes Bush look stellar....at some point, you'll need to learn to think for yourself, little one.
pyiteAug 7, 2010
Two points to make here:
1) If all they do is Bush-bashing, it will not be enough. It is merely one tool in the arsenal.
2) For f**k's sake, Republicans still use Jimmy Carter - who was significantly better than Bush.
scabnabbitAug 7, 2010
Actually, Jimmy Carter was pretty bad.
The thing that made him the worst was he was actually pretty honest.
Even his own party hated him for that.
brandhayAug 7, 2010
The Dems seem mired in a regressive blame game. I think the rest of us are looking for someone to take responsibility and moves us forward.