President Bush Ruined the economy!!

reply to post by Twilly


Your playing the political blame game and I'm a conservative. I could care less if Bush had an R or D next to his name, the facts are facts.

It's not about Clinton or Carter it's about Bush's irresponsible borrowing and spending.

It wasn't Clinton that borrowed more money in his first 4 years from foreign governments than 42 Presidents before him combined.

It wasn't Carter who didn't make an attempt to control spending with the Veto pen. Bush gave out 12 vetos vs. Reagan 78 and Clnton 37.

It's that simple. If Bush would have cut taxes and controlled spending we would be better off at this point.

Our debt is starting to outweigh our consumption and other countries will not want to hold our debt if we are not consuming their goods.

Bush has borrowed and spent us into oblivion and you and others want to use everybody who has a D next to their name as a scapegoat for his irresponsible behaviour.

Originally posted by Twilly
reply to post by Dodecahedral

 

A bit to simple if you ask me... You need to do your homework... And it will lead you to Slick Willie.

2 events in history have led up to where we are today.

1. The fact that Willie gutted the FBI and the CIA in the 90's caused 9-11... And the resulting reaction from Bush, right or wrong, would not have happened if Willie had left our information gatherers alone.

2. The "community reinvestment act" led to homes being sold to people who could not afford the home they were buying, and the banks were FORCED to make the loans by the federal government... Thanks Carter and slick Willy

Please research these two things and you will find the truth

Perhaps you'd care to post your sources? I'd like to see what constitutes "research" on your part...and isnt it just precious how there are still Clinton-bashers in the crowd in spite of the good he did? His 8 years were the most prosperous 8 years in decades!!!! And it didnt take a war either! (Besides which, a war, which usually boosts an economy, did squat for Bushwhacker which ought to tell you just how far OFF his policies really were)....

reply to post by irishgrl

really? all I did was expose you for taking MY info from an earlier thread

Chill out girl.

As I said before, I don't even know who you are. You are a new member, and have come on to people in a rage. The Internet is a big place. I was never on "your" thread, which by the way, was not yours, it is ZindoDoone's, a friend of mine. Furthermore, the chart I posted was never posted by you on that thread.
Do you understand how the internet works. People do searches, get hits, then reference them. You think you are the only person to link to a source? This is laughable. I can only assume you don't understand the way ATS and the Internet works.
Now calm down, try being polite, and stop making accusations such as accusing people of "stealing your sources". Also, it would be nice if you stopped labeling people as "conservative", when you don't even know who they are.

When you start name calling, and labeling people, you can't possibly win anyone over to your side. Keep it up, and you'll end up on everyone's ignore list, and then nobody will be conversing with you.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Originally posted by irishgrl
Perhaps you'd care to post your sources? I'd like to see what constitutes "research" on your part...and isnt it just precious how there are still Clinton-bashers in the crowd in spite of the good he did? His 8 years were the most prosperous 8 years in decades!!!! And it didnt take a war either! (Besides which, a war, which usually boosts an economy, did squat for Bushwhacker which ought to tell you just how far OFF his policies really were)....

Geez, how about just doing a freakin' google search:

en.wikipedia.org...

I know, wikipedia isn't my fav, either.

www.ffiec.gov...

www.policylink.org...

www.answers.com...

No war with Clinton? I guess I was in Kuwait in 1998 just working on my tan, huh? I won't mention Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia....

reply to post by irishgrl

Unfortunately, in the case of Bush, he was NOT fairly elected, he was handed his Presidency by the Supreme Court.

Really? That is really interesting, because right now, the Supreme Court is handing the Presidency to a Kenyan national, born in Kenya, attested to by his grandmother

origin.www.supremecourtus.gov...

Of course, Obama doesn't even exist in most records that candidates file before running:

www.fourwinds10.com...

The American People Demand to Know: WHO SENT YOU???

Nov. 27, 2008

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this is no accident. It is being done on purpose with Media help - but to serve whom & why??

MISSING-HIDDEN DOCUMENTS:

Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA -- Not Released (1 version hidden in Hawaii, Original found in Kenya)

Certificate of Live Birth -- Released – Proven Counterfeit (www.ObamaFiles.com)

Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro adoption records -- Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released

Punahou School records -- Not released

Selective Service Registration -- Released – Proven Counterfeit

Occidental College records -- Not released

Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released

Columbia College records -- Not released

Columbia thesis -- Not released

Harvard College records -- Not released

Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

Baptism certificate -- None

Medical records -- Not released

Illinois State Senate records -- None (Locked up to prohibit public view)

Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost (All other Illinois state senators' records are intact)

Law practice client list -- Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

Of course, he has Judge Souter on his side:
Docket for 08-570 US Supreme Court
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.

His "birth certificate has been proven to be a fraud:
www.freerepublic.com...

Whie it may "feel" good for most liberals to blame Bush,

It has been pointed out by some who are willing to do a little bit of research, most of the blame should be laid on the democrats from long ago.

Obama needs to admit his part in the economic crisis as well.

Here is an excerpt from an article I ran across. It is a letter written by Orson Scott Card, a democrat from North Carolina on the lie the media has sold the American public about our current economic crisis

" If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe -- and vote as if -- President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining
In the lie.


.  This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere.  It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.   It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.   What is a risky loan?  It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.   "The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups.  But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay?  They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.   They end up worse off than before.   This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.  One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.  The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.   Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. 

"(Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me.  It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)   Isn't there a story here?  Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout?  Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?   I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal.  'Housing-gate,' no doubt.  Or 'Fannie-gate.

'  "Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.  As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay ... 'Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago.  So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.  So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury.'   These are facts.  This financial crisis was completely preventable.  The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was the Democratic Party.  "The party that tried to prevent it was the Republican Party.   Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie.  Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! 

  What?  It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?   Now let's follow the money right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.   And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.  "If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.   But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an 'adviser' to the Obama campaign -- because that campaign had sought his advice -- you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. 

  You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.  If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama."If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. 

  There are precedents.  Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link.  (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)   If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.   "Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.  That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.   But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie -- that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.  You have trained the American people to blame everything bad -- even bad weather -- on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to."

Link to article
www.rushlimbaugh.com...

[edit on 29-11-2008 by paxnatus]

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by irishgrl

 

really? all I did was expose you for taking MY info from an earlier thread

Chill out girl.

As I said before, I don't even know who you are. You are a new member, and have come on to people in a rage. The Internet is a big place. I was never on "your" thread, which by the way, was not yours, it is ZindoDoone's, a friend of mine. Furthermore, the chart I posted was never posted by you on that thread.
Do you understand how the internet works. People do searches, get hits, then reference them. You think you are the only person to link to a source? This is laughable. I can only assume you don't understand the way ATS and the Internet works.
Now calm down, try being polite, and stop making accusations such as accusing people of "stealing your sources". Also, it would be nice if you stopped labeling people as "conservative", when you don't even know who they are.

When you start name calling, and labeling people, you can't possibly win anyone over to your side. Keep it up, and you'll end up on everyone's ignore list, and then nobody will be conversing with you.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Um, you DID post my link and my chart and if you'd checked the link I re-posted, you would have seen that. I never said it was MY thread, sorry, however, my chart was clearly there, as I saved one version to my photobucket and bookmarked the other one. Also, you would have known that I had posted it quite awhile before you did, which means you were and are, a Johnny-come-lately. I most certainly DO understand how the internet and ATS works. I also know a hypocrite when I see one, which is why I blasted you from the start. You plainly were belittling a previous poster and dissing them, using my link which is why I came in in the first place.
Also, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what side of the ideological aisle a person is on (conservative vs. liberal for example) based on the material they deem important. or their sources. especially their sources.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus



I myself have mixed feelings on Obama's ultimate legitimacy, however, the people CLEARLY elected him. there was no cloud over his electoral win, as there was over both of Bush's: first in Florida, then in Ohio.
The sad fact is, Until Obama is proven unworthy, you're stuck with him and so am I. I personally would rather have had Hillary. But, Obama was the PEOPLE'S choice, far moreso than Bush EVER was. Bush's legitimacy was ALWAYS in doubt!!!

Finally, Obama has until MONDAY to respond to Berg's writ, and until then, all your speculation and stone throwing is MOOT.

[edit on 11/29/08 by irishgrl]


[edit: replaced Big Quote with "reply to" link]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Oh my goodness..so you can forget Iran-Contra, the fraud the was 9-11, or the lies behind the Iraq war or the "war" in Afghanistan? you can ignore the mess of Enron, or Ken Lay, the collapse of the housing industry, the collapse of the securities lending industry, or the collapse of Wall Street? or the rape of the Californian energy payer? Of course you can. You're a believer, who cares if what you believe in is false, you just go ahead and believe anyway. Bush was lucky. he never got put in front of a Grand Jury, tho GAWD KNOWS he SHOULD HAVE. JERK. Thats ok tho....you just keep that head in the sand. thats where it belongs. Clinton was blamed for so much that wasnt his fault because the truth is, the NeoCons were scared STIFF of him. As well they should have been. He represented everything they were against, and he proved them wrong, time and time again. So, again, I say to you, you cannot ignore the irrefutable fact that Clinton balanced the budget, with a bigger deficit then we face today, and he did it wth a Republican Congress that bucked him at every turn. HE WILL BE REMEMBERED AS A HERO BY FUTURE GENERATIONS REGARDLESS OF YOUR WILL.

[edit on 11/29/08 by irishgrl]

Originally posted by irishgrl
Oh my goodness..so you can forget Iran-Contra, the fraud the was 9-11, or the lies behind the Iraq war or the "war" in Afghanistan? you can ignore the mess of Enron, or Ken Lay, the collapse of the housing industry, the collapse of the securityies lending industry, or the collapse of Wall Street? or the rape of the Californian energy payer? Of course you can. You're a believer, who cares if what you believe in is false, you just go ahead and believe anyway. Bush was lucky. he never got put in front of a Grand Jury, tho GAWD KNOWS he SHOULD HAVE. JERK. Thats ok tho....you just keep that head in the sand. thats where it belongs.

My, aren't we a bit on the touchy side!

Iran-Contra? Wrong Bush. Back to the books *cracking whip*

"Fraud that was 9/11"? That tired old ATS chestnut. Nah, it couldn't be the obvious, that terrorists decided to attack. And remember, you're good ol' buddy Clinton had intel on Osama and decided to take a pass on it. I think that was during the Monica phase in his life.

Lies behind Iraq? Yeah, Saddam was a great guy. I, myself, am glad he's dead. And his idiot kids. Oh, and Clinton could have probably taken care of him in 1998. Look up "Desert Thunder" (or "Desert Blunder" as we like to call it.)

Housing industry? Once again, hit the books. That started back when Carter was in office.

Collapse of Wall Street? You mean this all just started in Jan 2000 when Bush took office? True, he should have seen the Day-Glo writing on the wall.

But that's OK, True Believer. You'll have your democrat in office for the next four years. Let me know how that Marxism works out for you.

People here are really stuck on their identity as Republcans and they want to scapegoat Bush.

I'm a conservative and this is truly sad.

Bush has borrowed and spent us into oblivion and you want to try and blame Carter or Clinton because he's a republican.

The republican party is finished if they don't seperate themselves from Bush.

BUSH DID NOT REPRESENT CONSERVATISM WHEN IT CAME TO ECONOMICS.

People are trying to blame Carter LOL!!

We always have booms and bust and if Bush would have controlled spending and reduced thesize of government we wouldbe in better shape.

You can't cut taxes with borrowed money and then increase spending.

This is why we are in a credit crunch. People still have available capital their just not loaning it out because of our debt.

The republican party still hasn't learned from what just happened.

The only way a new Senator like Obama could get elected is because Bush has done so bad. The democrats felt they could win with anybody and you have Obama's natural political talents and they could bypass nominating Clinton.

Bush has been a disaster and his economic policy has not been Conservative.

As long as republicans keep trying to support Bush and make excuses the worse things will be for them.

If the Housing bubble started with Carter, why didn't Bush see it coming and save for a rainy day? Why did he keep borrowing and spending with the housing bubble growing?

Stop jumping through hoops to try and make excuses for Bush.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Dodecahedral]

reply to post by irishgrl

the fraud the was 9-11

Well, now we know where you are coming from. My God, 3,000 human beings are massacred by Terrorists, and you call it a fraud! MY family lost someone at the WTC, and you are beyond contempt.

What does the Housing bubble have to do with Bush borrowing and spending and not controlling government spending with the Veto?

What does the housing bubble have to do with the increase of discretionary spending under Bush?

What does the Housing Bubble have to do with Bush borowing more money from foreign governments than 42 Presidents combined?

Why didn't Bush do anything when he had control of the House and Senate?

Why keep borrowing and spending withthe housing bubble looming?

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Well, now we know where you are coming from. My God, 3,000 human beings are massacred by Terrorists, and you call it a fraud! MY family lost someone at the WTC, and you are beyond contempt.

Denying ignorance is respecting the dead.

Accepting the ridiculous spoon fed BS full of inconsistency, contradiction, and giant logic holes from the "main stream" media is disrespectful to those who died in that false flag attack.

The official story shows how stupid those in power thing the masses are.

Originally posted by irishgrl
reply to post by paxnatus

 

jeez....you're using Rush Limbaugh, the drug addict hypocrite, as a credible source?

*shakes head*

Here is an excerpt from an article I ran across. It is a letter written by Orson Scott Card, a democrat from North Carolina on the lie the media has sold the American public about our current economic crisis.
If you would have taken the time to read the article you would have seen that Orson Scott Card is a democratic newspaper columnist! Instead you are so busy name calling in your vitriolic speeches you can't even look objectively at the facts.

Why are you so peeved off? It really turns people off to what you are trying to say, which to this point is a whole lot of nothing!!

My source is just fine which I'll stand by. As far as Card himself, do a google search. He is a full fledge democrat, that's why I used the article in the first place.

So my advice to you, is control your emotions and use your brain to think about the facts that have been presented. And stop whining about "somebody stole your whatever" Prof.E is a respectable and very intuitive member of this board. He is the last person that should have to listen to your accusations. You really should work on winning friends and influencing people.

Your comment about Al Bore vs.Bush is too ridiculous to respond to.

It's all really just a matter of chaos