Facts. No spin. During the Bush-Cheney administration, net job growth was 1.1 million. This includes the military forces. Bush-Cheney inherited a robust economy with the national debt actually being paid down. When Vice President Dick Cheney was asked what effect a tax cut for the rich and two wars would have on the debt, he said the debt was irrelevant, and that was exactly how the administration was run.
The Obama-Biden administration inherited an economy in recession (remember the Bush-Cheney and Henry Paulson Wall Street bailout) and two wars.
In the three years of the Obama administration, there has been a net job increase of more than 3 million jobs.
I, too, would hope that eight years of disaster could be repaired in three years. I’d actually be amazed.
The only way to pay down the national debt is to have an active workforce and the rich paying a higher percentage of income tax than their secretaries do.
It will take time, compromise and common sense to repair the damage of eight years of the Bush administration.
"Don't changes horses in the middle of the stream."
This will be the main thrust of letters and comments by Democrats for the next 9 months. Isn't this the exact same message we heard in 2004?
Whee have you gone, Joe DiMagio (or TR or Ike?)
A CEO is brought in frequently to turn things around. If he does not, he's usually gone.
There was never eight years of negatives under Bush. Even in spite of 9/11, the economy showed incredible resiliance under Bush. This CEO has had his chance to turn things around--it's time to fire and replace him!
Robert Hall. I remember ye well. Didn't you used to have a bunch of men's clothing stores? Anyhow, when the facts don't suit your agenda, why not make up "facts" that do? Typical leftist BS. Osama Obama has been a disaster for American workers, union or otherwise (see Boeing or Keystone). He's been a disaster for home owners and small businesses, as well. He's been a disaster for future generations which will have a financial yoke around their necks that may be too big to ever pay off (see $4 trillion in added debt). The ones who "prospered" under his "leadership" were crony capitalists (see Solyndra) and favored fellow travelers. November will change that as he is unceremoniously booted out of office and sent packing to Illinois.
::::::::::::
Yes, Robert
::::::::::::
The Republicons are pure liars ... the Archie Bunker Party and Bib Overall Crowd of Toothless keep saying Obama added 4.7 trillion which of course he has not at all, not even close - they are proven liars
:::::::::::::::::::::;
Here is a question ... what would America be like if the Republicon Party were not such accomplised liars ?
:::::::::::::::::::::
No wars, no depressions, no bad jobless numbers and a roaring economy .. thats where
::::::::::::::::::::
The big lies about Obama make it worse and its all due to lies by the Archie Bunkers who really could care less about America as long as they can get rid of Obama ... watch Congress if you don't but it
::::::::::::::::::::::
Ola - all one has to do is go to fact check.org and other reputable economists to see what the real facts are as to what Obama had on his plate after the 8 nightmare years of Bubba Bush, Hot Head Rove, Shotgun Cheney and the Administration of Crime, Lies and Doom.
i'm laughing at carmen, fink, billy jerk and others for their pathetic ignorance. bush couldnt tie his own shoes and these dimwits still fall in line like lemmings off a cliff. no, Obama isnt perfect but hes a lot better that what we had before and hes light years ahead of the nitwits running against him.
The letter writer is correct in saying President Obama came into office in a tough period. The latter stages of the Bush Presidency were also a tough period. I also agree that mismanagement of the economy by former President Bush was responsible for alot of what we see today.
That however, should not be used to absolve President Obama for not doing what was and is still necessary.
I have no problem with raising taxes on the wealthy, as we do need additional tax revenue to run the government without deficit spending and beginning to reduce the debt.
We also need to rewrite the income tax code in a way where everybody progressively pays income taxes if they have an income. We also need to remove the ways in which the wealthy and businesses manipulate the code to reduce their taxes.
In addition, we need to remove the income cap on SS tax contributions, means test SS and Medicare to prevent the wealthy from accessing benefits and raise the retirement age. We also need to look for ways we can change those systems for future retirees so that the programs remain solvent.
President Obama came into office at a time when the items listed above should have been priority number one. He did try to end the Bush tax cuts and he deserves credit for that effort. But instead of tackling the other two items, he pushed the longed for D priority of health care reform. That was a big blunder for which he should take the blame. He also put together an expensive stimulus that was very poorly implemented as were initiatives in the housing area.
It's a mixed record at best and just as in the Presidency before his, many opportunities have been missed and priorities have been ass backwards.
We need better leadership than this. Can the R's running provide it? I don't know, but I do know President Obama, like President Bush before him, hasn't provided it.
Michael
::::::::::::::
Meathead ... what in the world may I ask are you smoking, drinking and injecting?
:::::::::::::::::
Directing our great military to get Bin Laden , avoid a Keating McCain war in Libya and then again directing our military to take out Alwahrhi and Meathead says this is not leadership
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Meathead .... it was your leader the liar and crack smoker Bush who failed to lead ... are you saying starting useless wars was leadeship and telling the SEC to back off Wall St fradusters and then telling America he was going to privatize Social Security ... you call this leadership
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Is outing CIA folk leadership, Meathead?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
9/11/01 happened on your boy's watch and has now been proved to have been totally preventable ... as per Richard Clark who gave many warnings .... and you are saying this is leadership
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Obama is a leader and an effective one and far more qualified than ever any Bush and any Enron bed riders and cannot be compared to the previous compele disaster of the Bush Haven for Crooks, Liars and Criminals
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ola - No Meathead, you have as usual no idea what you are babbling about and therefore you have no credibility whatsoever. You certainly have no idea what leadership is, period. Get sober.
:::::::
Bob Jack ...' no negatives under Bush'
:::::::
Bob, give up the happy hours pal, you are now too old to matabalize the vodka
:::::::::::
The biggest negative ever was 9/11/01 under your pal Crack Head Bush .... and you don't count that as a negative
::::::::::::::::::::::::
Plus he was warned over and over and was so stupidly stubborn refused to listen - quite a negative I'd say
:::::::::::::::::
Delusion of course is a Republicon constant and must be factored into each equation and also each equation must be LIE filtered as everyone knows
::::::::::::::
If ever in the history of this great nation there was a negative in the White House is was without question Bubba W. Bush the torturer by waterboarding ... an international war crime by everyone's standards except of course Repbulicons - Also the worst President in the history of the US .... a fact.
::::::::::::::::
Ola - Bob Jack ... no more happy hours, you just can't handle them at your age .... try knitting and crosswords and topics like the weather. Granda also asks if you would stop coming into the tavern as well. Thanks.
frank; whos meathead? carmen? billy jerk? future? rock? too many dimwits to list.
(Removed by the site staff)
Liberals are funny creatures really. They will look for any excuse to keep from castigating their own. Even in the face profound failure. Keep on pluggin' for this failure of a president. And pray for our children and grandchildren.
From the new CBO report released yesterday.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt under President Obama's policies will rise to $21.665 trillion by 2022, according to its updated budget outlook.
The updated outlook, released Tuesday, found that current Obama administration policies will result in a 50 percent increase in debt held by the public and a 40 percent increase in intra-governmental debt held in the trust funds of entitlement programs.
"In CBO's projections, debt held by the public is expected to increase by more than 50 percent between the end of 2011 and the end of 2022, and debt held by government accounts is expected to rise by nearly 40 percent," the CBO report found.
As a result of this rise in federal debt, CBO projects federal debt will reach $21.7 trillion by 2022.
"As a result, gross federal debt is projected to climb every year from 2012 to 2022, reaching $21.7 trillion in 2022--47 percent more than its total of $14.8 trillion at the end of 2011."
These projections come under CBO's so-called baseline scenario, which assumes that all provisions of current law go into effect -- including the massive tax increases currently scheduled to take effect in 2013 when the Bush tax rates are set to expire.
CBO's baseline projection represents the estimated debt incurred by current policy over 10 years, reflecting the fact that government spending commitments continue over several years.
Should Obama win a second term in January, he will leave office with a projected $18.4 trillion national debt -- an increase of $7.8 trillion in the eight years Obama will have been in office. The national debt stood at $10.6 trillion in January 2009 when Obama took office.
:::::::::::::::::::::::
Where is the discussion on the cost of Reagan's Funeral ?
:::::::::::::::::::
Estimates range from $400 millions to over a billion
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
It nothing to the Republicons at all because it is taxpayers money
::::::::::::::::::::
See, its like one of their boys Sewertorium who admitted to 16 billion in earmarks for his district over his 6 disasterous Senate years .... it is the tax and spend Republicons who lie and reverse the facts
:::::::::::::::::::::
The spent us into wars and Wall St depression and then attempted to privatize Social Security so their boys could make billions on the management fees and pump into back into Texas and Bush Family
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ola - Just reading a few of the Arichie Bunker posters here one can see they its off their backs but either don't care or ... are UNaware of it all. Fools I would happily say.
Mark,
You make a good case for President Obama not being re-elected. Former President Bush did much the same thing as President Obama is doing. Eschew the tough decisions and keep on spending without much regard for the deficits and debt.
At some point hopefully, either President Obama or his replacement will start to make the really tough choices required to undue the damaage that's been done. For me, there was and is plenty of blame to spread around in both the Bush and Obama admisnistration.
At this point, I just want someone in leadership to admit we have huge problems, tell Americans how they are going to have to sacrafice to undue the damage and start calling for the tough actions required.
So far, we are 0 for 2. Bush didn't do and Obama hasn't done it. If we go 0 for 3, we're all going to be very sorry.
Michael
(Removed by the site staff)
I have always said. BUSH (neither one)WAS AND IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. The establishment GOP are affraid of a REAL CONSERVATIVE leading their ticket. As are liberals. They all know a REAL CONSERVATIVE president would destroy their elite way of life. They are also affraid that THE PEOPLE would not accept a REAL CONSERVATIVE. I believe they are wrong.
BTW...remember the letter about oil of last week. And all the ignoramouses who said "duh...the U.S. aint got no oil."
<http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...>
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp...
wtplv; you voted for bush TWICE and then mccain. you say Obama hasnt righted the ship fast enough, is that the problem? be patient, buddy. your pal bush took 8 years to screw things up and you want Obama to fix it NOW! it aint gonna happen. take some responsibility here and admit you screwed up by voting for these goofs.
So far, the logic employed by several posters since reading the CBO report (summary), leaves a lot to be desired.
Let me state it again:
Liberals are funny creatures really. They will look for any excuse to keep from castigating their own. Even in the face of profound failure. Keep on pluggin' for this failure of a president. And pray for our children and grandchildren.
Dennis,
I have never not taken responsibility for my votes. I freely admit that I voted for Bush twice and that it obviously did not work out too well.
That said, my choices were Gore and Kerry, who I am sure you think were great choices and who you voted for. I disagreed then and 'no one' knows whether they would have been better or worse choices.
I know everyone wants to pile on Bush and he deserves much of it, but let's be fair. He comes into office and the dot com bubble implodes and with it, the economy and shortly thereafter, we are hit with 9/11. You are always willing to cut President Obama as much slack as necessary given what he faced, but of course, Bush gets none, considering what he faced.
When Obama ran, as much as he did a great job concealing it, he wasn't a moderate and he is a progressive with a philosophy I simply don't agree with. Many people do, including you and you have every right to vote for and support the guy. And bully for him that he ran a campaign where he was able to convince many Americans he was something he is not.... ergo, his loss of popularity when many Americans began to question his policies.
Unlike you with R's, I don't find the D party and most of the people in it imoral, unethical, stupid or evil. They simply adhere to a philosophy I disagree with.
Michael
I find one of the funniest things about the CBO report is this part:
"These projections come under CBO's so-called baseline scenario, which assumes that all provisions of current law go into effect -- including the massive tax increases currently scheduled to take effect in 2013 when the Bush tax rates are set to expire."
It includes the expiration of the, originally, Bush tax cuts. Now the Obama tax cuts. And the debt just keeps going upupupupupupupu!!!
But will the "taxtaxtaxtaxtax" people now acknowledge that we just can't tax enough to get out of this mess? And that the only thing that will work is to cut spending and kill "base-line-budgeting?
NO....They won't
Mark,
I see you are from the Rush Limbaugh school of thought. I don't know but I think if the R's put up a Conservative, like Palin, Bachmann, Perry, etc., they would lose in a landslide, especially due to their stand on social issues. If they'd shut up about those, they have a better chance but they seem to insist on wearing them on their sleeves.
The Tea Party seems to me to be a bunch of Americans who are Conservative economically, sick and tired of both 'standard' D's and R's and are looking for fiscal sanity and don't care that much about social issues.
Unlike the people on the far left and far right, I see my country as one where most Americans are socially progressive and economically conservative. If either party put up a candidate that was truly economically conservative and socially progressive, Americans would flock to that candidate. The closest we have this time is Romney, so we'll see how that goes.
Michael
Not only was Bush's job creation record the worst 70 years at 1.1 million, he left office with a economy shedding 700 thousand jobs a month. When Bush stated his court appointed presidency the unemployment rate was 4.2% when he left office the unemployment rate was 7.2% and climbing. How about the DOW before Bush 10587 when bush left office the DOW was at 7986 and dropping like a rock. Surprise the poverty rate rose 2% during the Bush administration with the average family median income plummeting by $1175 coupled with that average G.D.P. of 2.5% the bush administration presided over the worst economy since the Hoover administration. With those numbers it is easy to see why the Republicans keep trying to pin it on Obama.
BushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBushBush.....
Good God. Will you equivocators never tire? Get a new DVD !!! Time to throw out the "security blanket" and grow up!!!
MK...you are right. And as I've said b-4, a fiscally conservative president is the only hope. He/she doesn't have to be progressively social. Moderate would do.
But if Obama gets 4 more with his "black theologian,marxist,socialist,saul alynski,whatever" philosophies, all the social c**p won't matter. Because this country will be bankrupt. The CBO report says it all.
woops...I meant MC
MK...no hope.
The tea part minions can't dispute the fact that bush was handed the best economy in the modern era and turned in the worst economy in the modern era. Face it George W Bush and his right wing influenced Republican Congress was a abject economic failure. Bad faith is all the Republican/ Tea party has.
Mark,
I am afraid we are in big trouble. I can only hope enough people are fair minded and able to look at things objectively.
Take Mike Kerns for example. Even if we agree that former President Bush made many mistakes, people like Mike take an 8 year record, pick out the worst possible stats at the worst possible times and proclaim the entire endeavor a disaster. I highly doubt if the same picking and choosing was used to proclaim the entire Obama administration an abject failure, Mike and other Obama supporters would agree.
Was Bush an overall lousy President but one that did some good things as well? Yes, I could buy that objective view. Could the same claim be made for President Obama? I think it could.
But only if people are fair. I wonder how many fair people we have left in America.
Michael
Michael,
To answer your question, if the people who post on the Sun are indicative of the vast majority who do not, then I would have to say not nearly enough.
The ideological blinders simply *must* be removed.
Beyond that, the idea that there can only be two major political parties must be dispelled. If one looks at history, one finds that several parties enjoyed some measure of success at the same time prior to the Civil War.
This may be a tangent, but I can't help but notice that not only did the Civil War polarize the nation at the time, but it appears it also polarized our political parties as well. It might be that the Civil War has never ended at all.
Right. Of course it is quite OK for a tea party or any person on the right wing side of the argument to criticize a Democrat or anyone on the left side of the argument. But it not OK according to you casler to counter the conservative posters arguments with facts. That makes me an unreasonable person in your book. Casler you have struck out trying to promote yourself as a voice of moderation with me.
Mike,
It's not just you, it's people on both sides. President Obama is neither all good or all bad. Same goes for former President Bush. I'm not singling you out but using you as an example. The hyperbole on both sides is rediculous and it should stop.
In my book, anyone that makes the claim, often heard here, that all R's are all bad with no redeeming qualities or that all D's are all bad with no redeeming qualities is, in a word, an idiot. This kind of thinking is exactly why our country is failing, much more than anything either party is or is not doing. I got on Joseph S for the same attitude and rheteroic and his response was 'I used to be nice and fair but the other side wasn't so I'm not either'. Well, that's understandible but it doesn't change the fact that as long as people take that attitude, we're stuck at the starting line and accomplishing little good and alot of harm. Sorry you took offense as it wasn't intended as a personal attack.
Michael
And Mike, if you've read what I have written, you know I do not think it is ok for people to make unfair or inaccurate criticisms of the other side, no matter which side does it.
It's fine to point out what you did, but what about when the economy was pretty good under Bush? What about the fact that he entered office as the dot come bubble emploded and then had to deal with 9/11 and its aftermath?
People writing letters to the Sun on both sides turn logic on its head. They draw a conclusion and then cherry pick 'only' data that support that conclusion and ignore anything else. Any scientist doing this would be fired.
That's my point. Just fairly look at things.
Michael
bimmerdude,
Excellent, well reasoned letter. Keep it up.
Michael
All of you all are wrong. Right at the end of the W. Bush Administration, the economy fell off a cliff and was in freefall with no bottom in sight. Credit was frozen -- even credit to solid credit-worthy borrowers. And banks were calling loans -- even good performing loans -- and cutting credit facilities even to solvent, well-secured borrowers. We were entering another Great Depression. Only the most drastic and unpopular measures pulled us back to a big recession and began a slow climb out. The current President's chief failing has been to reprise the role of Herbert Hoover in doing a moderate amount -- enough to pull us out of the sharp fall -- but not enough to generate rapid growth of GDP. But given what passes for political thought in this country, a failure to do what was really needed is to be expected.
We still haven't fixed what caused the crash, so all of us are still vulnerable to the effects of the next big one.
But instead the Rs will yell at the Ds, the Ds will yell at the Rs. If Congress changes hands, the new Congress will try to erase everything the last Congress did. If the Executive Branch changes hands the new President will try to erase everything the last President did. So there will be no net change of position until we swap parties again, in which case they will try to erase everything the other party did,
resulting no net change in position.
And so we will drift...until enough of you wise up.
Future - "He within days passed his solution -a crony ladened inept Stimulus. That the stimulus was a dud and did not lead to a robust recovery is on Obama."
Lies and more lies, you people are surreal.
The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus -- which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office.
CarmineD - "Obama chose to run. He should have known what he was doing and getting into."
No one knows what happens in the Oval Office until they get there. For example Obama didn't know both wars were not in the budget leaving a huge gap in the economy. Those are the facts people. The economy is getting better and you Obama haters ignore that fact just as you do with the success he's had against terrorists.
CarmineD - "Obama's success was dependent on an infrastructure of terrorist defense/warfare put into place by the Bush2 Admin, including a host of holdovers from Bush2. You want to give credit rightly, start there."
Another lie. When Leon Panetta took over the CIA Obama and he built the investigative team that took out the terrorists. It was a priority set by Obama. Up till then Bush said several times Bin Laden wasn't a priority and he didn't really care about finding him. Remind yourself, it was Bush2 who failed to analyze whatever data he got and insisted on sending us into war.
Good Lord dude, I was simply pointing out that there is oil in the U.S. for those idiots that say there is not or very little. Not only in Dakota. But Alaska (on land), off the coast of Alaska, the Gulf, off the East coast, off the West coast. Plus lots of other places.
China is gonna be drilling 60 miles off the Florida coast 4christsake.
I agree with you about oil because I am an "all the above" guy. MORE SUPPLY = LOWER PRICES or at least holding prices in check.
Typical tea party M.O. Say or do anything to cause trouble for Obama. And claim I'm a victim whenever confronted on being dishonest. L.O.L.