Posted on 10/14/2009 1:03:18 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
I dont know about you, but given the past two election disasters I would like some realistic information, not non-sense.
Plus, I think maybe we should try talking points that are not completely laughable. Blaming Clinton and Obama and even Frank for the economy at the end of GWB eight years was tried last Fall during Mccain election and was not bought because it was too idiotic.
On your point, I know a liberal here who tried something similar with me, he blamed GWB for the high unemployment Sept 2009 (last month), but then tried to Blame GWB for Sept 11 2001 attack and resulting market crash. He said it was “ on Bush's watch ” . So I asked whose watch the high unemployment is on NOW, exactly eight years later after the recovery/stimulus bill, GWBs???? He got stuck on that one.
That doesnt mean I use similarly idiotic arguments on him.
A rule of thumb. A president in office for 6 months can easily get away with blaming the bad economy on the previous president who was in for 8 years.
A president in office for 8 years cannot get away with blaming the bad economy on the prior president who was in office 9 years earlier, or the president who is running for election, but was never president.
It is sad that I have to point out something SO obvious.
our Michelles (Malkin & Bachman), Laura, Monica Crowley, etc all the Fox News Babes and any Conservative females-- Reminds me of the old joke from the 60s... 
that I've cleaned up for this thread: Every woman who carries a sign calling for abortion on demand, you'd never want to make love to anyway!"
Gadzooks! Do the Democrats just breed em that coyote ugly... 
or is it something in the koolaid they drink to become so damn loony liberal?
That doesnt mean I use similarly idiotic arguments on him.
++++++++++++++++++
Right. And beyond that point, it’s idiotic to blame the entire economy on any president alone - it’s the party in charge.
The D’s have now been in charge for 3 years, when you consider their takeover of the Congress in Jan. 2007. So truly you can only ‘blame Bush’, the Republicans and the RINOs for about 2002 (if you use the logic in your other post about 6 to 12 months of a grace period) to say end of 2006.
Furthermore, the Ds were master obstructionists during their minority time - blocking every possible initiative by conservatives that might have led to things like more oversight at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.
Now this president is a radical and has assembled a radical cabinet.
But in general, presidents are like quarterbacks - they get too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when they lose.
It’s the Democrats 75% control of Congress (*and* the POTUS when they had it) in the past 90 years that has really caused problems to stack up in this country (entitlements run amuck.)
Yeah, so really, this first year in bammy’s regime, is the 3rd year in the Demos recent reign.
I find more than enough evidence to ‘blame’ the RATS!
Think about it. Your point isn’t obvious unless you agree that the POTUS has all the impact on the economy. What about Congress, the States policies, and the 80% (though now shrinking) of the economy that is the private sector?
That said, some Presidents do have more impact than others - and in my view it’s the activist Presidents in the D party that impact the country in a more negative way, not the free market, lessaiz faire Presidents of the R party.
But I agree with you, I won’t blame Clinton for Bush’s foibles.
I *will* blame the 75% control of the Congress by Ds in the past 80 years for helping to drive the entitlement mindset.
You did it again. Entitlements?? Like GWB republican bi-partison Medicare drug entitlement on Americas credit card?
RE :” Your point isn’t obvious unless you agree that the POTUS has all the impact on the economy ”
Oh really??? You mean in 4 years you wont blame Obama for a bad economy?? You mean if I do a search now I wont find you blaming Obama for the unemployment? You are defending him here because he is only pres??? Jeeze, be serious.
Bush had a historic opportunity with the republican congress to showcase conservatism and used it to create a disaster. Then the Bushbots /RNC types thought they would re-write history at the last hour.
You’ve nailed it again, my Tin-Man!!
sickofliberals: “You did it again. Entitlements?? Like GWB republican bi-partison Medicare drug entitlement on Americas credit card?”
+++++++++++++
Do you blame the Rs as much as the Ds? Seriously? It’s the Ds that have created the populism toward entitlements...the fault of the Rs has been to not oppose it vigorously enough - to be sure. But the Rs are NOT to blame as much. Do you? Really?
********************
sickofliberals: “Oh really??? You mean in 4 years you wont blame Obama for a bad economy?? You mean if I do a search now I wont find you blaming Obama for the unemployment? You are defending him here because he is only pres??? Jeeze, be serious.”
++++++++++++++++
Hey, since the idiot libs play the game of ‘blame the prez’, sure, you’ll see me doing the same. If that’s ‘how the game is played’ then to some degree, I’m going to get in there and tussle.
Would I like to play the high road and deal with reality - sure. But since the Ds play this game, to some degree, so do we. So YOU BET, I’ll get on the ground and tussle for that fumbled ball - and poke some eyes down there - since those are the groundrules we’re currently using. So, no way to completely maintain using the ‘high ground’ in that instance.
But with my fellow conservatives, I’d think that we’d realize who holds the purse strings along with the president signing the budgets and who puts those budgets on the presidents desk, laden with pork barrel spending.
Do you blame that all on the president? Wow!? Get real!
I agree with you that W. Bush blew a historic opportunity to showcase conservative fiscal policies - although he was decently conservative on a number of issues and kept us safe - for which I give him credit for strong leadership.
So first you say we have to give GWB a pass because a president controls so little, but then you say that you will blame Obama because dems blamed Bush, but you don't really believe it can be Obamas fault, you will just say it to 'win'
Then you believe in nothing. The idea of truth means nothing to you. There is no right and wrong to you. It's all about republicans winning to you. You dont care what they do, as long as they win.
There are a few of us here at FR that the RNC do NOT own, we are NOT all party hacks like you.
Let's say our goal was the same as Hannity’s and yours to elect republicans by any means, even by using idiotic contradictory arguments like “Republican presidents have no control over the economy, unless when it booms and that is because of them, but democrat presidents ARE responsible for the economy, but only if it is bad.”
The problem is that you and the RNC and Hannity tried this in 2006 and 2008 and almost no one bought it. It was just too stupid. It just makes the users look dumb
You are not the only one to try this here, I have got many pings trying the exact same arguments. My question is what is the point of using them here ??, especially knowing they are bogus??? Is this so some freepers reading go door to door repeating them hoping their neighbors are as stupid as they are?? (like some did with McCain)
My favorite recent Hannity argument was after the CBO said (based on a bill that was not written) Obamacare would increase the deficit, Hannity kept repeating, "The CBO is the GOLD STANDARD." I remember thinking, "Oh boy, when the CBO gives Obamacare a thumbs up, what are you going to say?"
So guess what. After the CBO said (again based on an unwritten bill) that Obamacare was good for the deficit Hannity didn't slow down -- he just stopped talking about the CBO.
So first you say we have to give GWB a pass because a president controls so little, but then you say that you will blame Obama because dems blamed Bush, but you don’t really believe it can be Obamas fault, you will just say it to ‘win’
++++++++++++
It’s not so hard to understand sick. Really. The POTUS doesn’t have total power, he is powerful, but is only one person. Like a QB, he’s given all the blame and all the glory - that’s not reality, but is a simple perception that seems to hold true in sound bite reality.
Now among more mature conversationalists, we can discuss a more mature view of economics and geopolitics. But often, in sound bite land, we don’t have that luxury (have you noticed?)
So I will fight to have mature conversations with liberals, but when push comes to shove and they shove the ‘blame Bush’ mantra, I will shove the blame Obama mantra right back (to force them to be consistent.) Either they’ll grow up related to Obama not having total power, or they’ll grow up related to Bush - but they CAN’T, nor will I, nor should you (after all you’re ‘sick’ of ‘em, right? or so you say) let them float around in that hypocricy.
************************
“Then you believe in nothing. The idea of truth means nothing to you. There is no right and wrong to you. It’s all about republicans winning to you. You dont care what they do, as long as they win.”
+++++++++++
This is just a ridiculous comment, and completely untrue. If you want to make a case based on who I am and what I’ve done, perhaps you can bother to Freep mail me and find that out, before making such absurd and preposterous assumptions. Wow!
**********************
“There are a few of us here at FR that the RNC do NOT own, we are NOT all party hacks like you.”
++++++++++++++
Wrong again. Untrue. You should do a little research before making such insulting statements.
Let’s say our goal was the same as Hannity’s and yours to elect republicans by any means...The problem is that you and the RNC and Hannity tried this...
++++++++++++++
Wow, are you done yet? Honestly sick, you don’t know me from Adam, and are lumping me in with the RNC. Are you kidding me? LOL. You honestly know nothing, or very little about me.
*********************
You are not the only one to try this here....
+++++++++++++
How many assumptions are you going to make without talking to me? It’s getting pretty painful and awkward...and that aint my fault.
LOL, good example. Hannity does that all the time.
Someone pinged me a few weeks ago saying Glenn Beck was not careful. So last week or so Beck is fighting with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Beck says “You voted for the stimulus Senator” . He must have meant TARP because the Obama recovery Act only got three RINOs and he was NOT one of them. That is a bit unfair getting his viewers all worked up on that, voting for the Obama stimulus really would have been treason.
Yes I know Grahm is working with Kerry on Cap and Trade. Insane! He wont get re-elected if that goes anywhere,
I wouldnt try to assign economic blame to any one person even GWB. I know the president cant control the economy. But here’s some things to consider before defending GWB.
1) GWB and his followers gave him credit for the recovery after Sept 11. (ie those tax cuts) . This would become a trap later on.
2) The booming Bush economy was primarily the debt housing bubble and government debt spending fueled by cheap money. We still got the second one, the first one had to blow up.
3) GWB promoted home loans for minorities with bad credit, and bragged about it. This is what kills the Barney Frank/CRA argument against democrats.
4) The stock market crash first started Sept 2007, So you would have to convince the voters Pelosi broke the economy in 9 months
5) The President always gets the blame, especially if in office for a while with his own congress. There is no way out. And if the economy recovers Obama will get the credit. If it doesnt he will get the blame, except the 2010 midterms complicate things. If the economy doesnt get better, you definitely want it to LOOK like dems are in charge,.
Creating a phony GWB legacy is a losing strategy. Republican party must be reformed away from big gov/spending/debt neo-cons. This cannot happen defending GWB,
Not too sure why you’re posting to me, since you accused me of not caring about the truth, nor understanding right and wrong...lol. Why would you make such baseless statements?
I’m not concerned about Bush 43’s legacy. History will take care of the good, the bad and the ugly of that, all on its own.
Can you make your case on point 3 a little more, or cite some links there? Do you place any blame for the housing bubble on the Democrats opposing more stringent oversight of Fannie and Freddie? Of course to whatever Republicans got involved in that, they are to blame as well.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/minorityhome.cfm
“President George W. Bush announced, in his 2002 State of the Union address, that he would work with Congress this year to achieve “broader homeownership, especially among minorities.” The President’s announcement followed the U.S. Census Bureau’s release of homeownership data on January 25, 2002, showing that there are now 73 million homeowners nationwide, more than at any time in history, and that the minority homeownership rate is 49 percent, also a new record. Former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez emphasized that “This Administration is poised to build upon this record with a new focus on making it easier for Americans to have a stake in their communities and shape their neighborhoods through homeownership. The President’s down payment assistance initiative, increase in funding for housing counseling services, and stronger partnerships with faith-based groups will pave the way for thousands more to achieve the dream of homeownership.”
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-us-federal-government/5244348-1.html
WASHINGTON—(BUSINESS WIRE)—Feb. 11, 2004
The National Association of Realtors(R) praised the Bush administration for including the community homeownership tax credit in the president’s proposed fiscal year 2005 budget. Modeled on the highly successful low-income housing tax credit, the proposal is designed to help increase the supply of affordable homes built in lower-income communities...NAR also supports specific funding requests in the president’s budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that will bolster homeownership opportunities, including $200 million for the American Dream Downpayment Act that was enacted last year and $45 million to expand HUD’s counseling services program.
+++++++++++++
Looks like that last program was a few hundred million $ program. Now, the Bush admin also tried to bring out more stringent regulations to Fannie and Freddie, which the dim bulbs opposed.
There are plenty of videos to watch that show the dims opposing regulation, which to this day is something they deny. Here is just one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
To various degrees both parties, across 2 presidents and a number of other factors were behind this mess. It is not as simple as blaming one president or party. However, I blame the entitlement mentality and the greater portion of blame for the subprime housing bubble, on the Ds. In the programs referred to above, Bush did call for help with a down payment for qualified minorities, not just anyone - and the Bush admin repeatedly tried to lead efforts for more oversight into Dim darlings Fannie and Freddie and were vigorously opposed making it politically difficult to get that done during election cycles when normal political considerations still seemed to apply. (who knows what the dims are thinking now - maybe total cover from the fringe media?)
The status quo let the bubble get very extreme and eventually burst.
I find it curious for someone like you who is ‘sickoflibs’ to not find more evidence condemnatory of liberal policies and mindsets propogated in the public that led to the bubble.
++++++++++++
“And if the economy recovers Obama will get the credit.”
Wow, do you really think if bammy gets his way, this is remotely possible, as we sit here now on 10% unemployment?
4) The stock market crash first started Sept 2007, So you would have to convince the voters Pelosi broke the economy in 9 months
++++++++++++++
From Sept. 7, 2007 to May 9, 2008 the stock market lost only 55 points over 13,113, which is 0.4%. The real plunge happened after that - which would put us 17 months into Pelos-lie’s reign.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.