After Historic Election Wins … Setting the Record Straight
The constant liberal drumbeat throughout the election season told Americans how badly President Bush screwed up the country. It was so bad, the leftists told us, that not even their messiah, President Obama, could get us out. Liberals do love to rewrite history, don’t they? But you may be familiar with an old axiom that says history is written by the victor. And while the conservative victory isn’t complete, by virtue of the fact that we’re saddled with Mr. Obama for another two years, conservatives have won a key battle in stopping a leftist progressive agenda implemented by this president and his cronies. All the high-profile Republicans like Rubio, Paul, and Boehner acknowledged that the election victories were not a sign that America suddenly loves Republicans. They all recognized that America’s vote was a rejection of President Obama, and Republicans now have to prove worthy of the second chance they’ve been given. Still, after huge election victories, America can finally begin to wake from the national nightmare that liberals have imposed on us. We can again dream of leaving a prosperous America to our children. We can once again start to smell the return of individual freedom. Ronald Reagan once said that freedom was like the air we breathe. If it’s denied us, even for a second, we begin to realize how important it is to us. With the election of a Congress to stop the radical-in-chief, the nation can at least exhale with some confidence that their next breath isn’t that far off.
To all the socialists and left-wing apologists out there who insist our current economic crisis is all Bush’s fault, I’d like to remind you of a few things. When President Bush took office, he too was handed a recession from Bill Clinton. Then there was that little thing called the 9-11 terrorist attacks. After those enormous hits to our country, President Bush had a choice. He could adopt pro-growth tax policies and let our capitalist system work. Or he could raise taxes, or leave the Clinton tax increases in place. He chose option one. And then America did what she’s always done: got to work. The private sector added millions of jobs, and revenue increased to the federal treasury, as it always does when taxes are cut. In short, America prospered. In fact, the highest the unemployment rate got under Bush was 5.99 percent. He ended his two terms with a 5.76% unemployment rate. Though Bush deserves some criticism for not coupling tax cuts with significant spending cuts, everyone seems to forget who controlled the purse strings for the last two years of the Bush presidency. That’s right, Democrats controlled the legislative branch and set the stage for the anointed one.
Enter President Obama. He had a choice too. He could have instituted pro-growth policies or “fundamentally change America.” He chose option two. Since Obama took office, America has lost over three million jobs. Our unemployment rate sits at 9.7%. Real unemployment, which includes part-time workers and those who have just stopped looking, sits at 17%. But take heart liberals: there was increased hiring of government workers. That’s important because Mr. Obama had to make sure his public employee union buddies had plenty of taxpayer dollars to fund his 2012 campaign. Our debt has sky-rocketed. Every child born in America comes into this world over $42,000 in debt. Employers won’t hire because of the uncertainty that comes with ObamaCare. They also fear future unknown burdens on the productive members of our society from a White House that is oppressive but creative in how they implement that oppression. (Could they really get away with an oppression czar?)
The great economic strength of America really comes from our egalitarianism. It is not whom you know, but what you know. You can make it, however humble your beginnings. This allows to harness the greatest abilities of everyone.
This egalitarianism is most important in law and government. What we now have is a system of access; a nation of men, not laws. Now it is all about whom you know, not what you know. The mediocre become dominant in such a case, not the excellent.
Our economy reflects that. 9.7% unemployment is the Obama norm. It has been stuck there for months. It has settled in. Yay, us!
Poor Barry. He’s so wrapped up in his own failed vision of what he thinks America should be that he is failing to realize or understand the message that was just sent to him and his acolytes loudly and clearly. Well you can lead a horse (or donkey I suppose) to water but you can’t make it drink. Now it’s up to the Republicans and Conservatives, those newly elected and those who have been in Congress, to work together, to have a working agenda, to put forth ideas that will halt or at least slow down the destructive policies of Barry and his cohorts at least until 2012 when we again will have an opportunity to shake things up. Most importantly the Republicans must find a suitable candidate to run against Barry. The time to start narrowing the field of wanna be Presidents is now not later and the sooner the better. Those tired old Washington insiders like Newt, like Romney, like Huckabee and others will not stand a chance against Barry. We need a fresh new face, new ideas and someone who will appeal to all groups across the country. It’s not going to be easy.
“But take heart liberals: there was increased hiring of government workers. That’s important because Mr. Obama had to make sure his public employee union buddies had plenty of taxpayer dollars to fund his 2012 campaign.”
That is the most disgusting thing about Democrats. They want to increase the size of government and then have those new government workers be forced to support Democratic candidates through the public employee unions using union dues. So public tax money is going to fund pbulic employee unions so that they can support Democratic candidates with YOUR money. Nice.
How about a new Tea Party issue? Lets make it illegal for public employee unions to use union dues to support ANY political candidate. If their members want to donate individually to candidates, good for them. But the unions themselves should not be allowed to donate because they are being supported by taxpayer money and they do NOT have the right to spend that money on political candidates, in any party. If you want to work for the government, fine. But your union doesn’t have the right to spend MY money on your political campaigns.
“When President Bush took office, he too was handed a recession from Bill Clinton. ”
Manifestly false. The standard definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. That hadn’t happened when Bush assumed his throne. Didn’t happen until March. the rest of your “article” is rife with equally false assertions.
But hey, if Hannity says so, I guess you have to go with it.
DOH-sensai
Are you really so obtuse as to believe that the recession that “officially” began in March, two months after the inauguration, was anyone’s but the prior administration?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say on the one hand that Bush “owned” the recession that started two months in to his term but Obama doesn’t own the recession he inherited! A President must take ownership of the economy at some point, probably a year in, but a recession that begins two months in was a fate-accompli.
(One of the sad things about liberals is they think they’re entitled to having it both ways.)
It was the same when Clinton took office – he got credit for the recovery that began under Bush 41.
Stupid, stupid comparisons — Bush inherited a very strong economy that had a very minor post-dot-com boom/bust hangover, but even with that, Bush did not exactly have anything real to complain about; whereas Obama inherited a massive train wreck in action. Bush’s legacy is more akin to that of a vandal.
As far a 9/11 goes, there is plenty of evidence that there were warnings that were not taken seriously by Bush’s people. And after 9/11, the only thing that Bush did right for a short time was go after bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but then he decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to execute a PNAC policy wish to take out Hussein despite Iraq having nothing to do whatsoever with 9/11 or al-Qaeda (something most Americans did not know, especially the soldiers).
If all this wasn’t bad enough, both the US military and the intelligence agencies ended up up being gutted in favor of private contractors.
I’ve been accused on this site of “BDS” – the clueless BS term that right wingers use in semi-defense of Bush — but the truth is that if you list only the big lies and f*ck-ups (never mind the little stuff, which would include the Valerie Plame affair), you have an absolute colossal failure of not only a Presidency, but also of public judgment and of a news media that was utterly incompetent in sorting out rumors from facts, lies from truth, no matter how extreme the situation.
Man take that PDB and shove it up yer ass. Have you actually read the damn thing? Perhaps you’d like to explain to everyone exactly what it has to do with anything we saw on 9/11.
To Tepes: Maybe you should try reading — the article compared Bush supposedly inheriting a recession to Obama inheriting a recession as somehow being roughly equivalent: President Bush took office, he too was handed a recession
There is no friggin comparison whatsoever between what Clinton left for Bush and what Bush dumped on Obama. None. Which means the whole premise of the article is garbage, but even more so with the mention of 9/11: Then there was that little thing called the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Which Bush misused for a little thing called “The Iraq War” as well as an explosion in security expenditures that so far has enhanced the DC area real estate market and little else.
BC Let’s see, poor Obama inherited a mess. The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress for two years prior to the election, 2006-2008. Within those two Houses all appropriations bills are originated, as to programs, allocations, and total amounts. Oddly enough the single biggest deficit in the Bush years was crafted and approved by that Congress. There was a senator, who happened not to know his ass from a hole in the ground, from Illinois who voted for these bills, name of Barack Obama. Somehow none of this is the Democrats fault, and certainly not the guy from Illinois who went along with it, all these poor darlings had was control of both Houses, posh, what does that mean? Just Bush, only Bush. Something’s wrong here, let’s try again.
Obama inherited a mess,—–, nah, maybe tomorrow.
To johnt: Sorry, but by 2006, it was already too late. And in case you don’t know, new Senators and Representative don’t get sworn in until the 3rd day of the following January, which means that the Democrats didn’t actually take over until 2007, when things really started getting fun.
Also you’re not allowed to blame Obama for a lot of BS nonsense and absolve Bush of his real sins by pretending the rules of your already deranged blame game change dramatically depending on whom you don’t agree with.
I agree, the numbers speak for themselves. Clinton Made great improvements to the economy, which Bush took for granted. He then threw the improvements away. People here must have very short term memories, or just a selective memories. Getting out of the dump Bush left us will take some time That is just how the economy works. It is not magically fixed over night. People all just expect instant gratification. Everyone who is hoping the republican takeover of the house actually means anything grand is fooling themselves. Not just two years ago there was a giant Democrat tsunami, which indicated a giant shift in our country. Change is slow, but our county is certainly slowing moving in a progressive manner. That is not going to be changed.
Bush did not inherit a strong economy. It was just ending a huge boom. Then 9/11, which was devastating 1-2 punch economically. Still Americans felt free to invest and build when it made economic sense, without fear that their government was interested in confiscating part of their work and telling them how to care for their employees.
On the other side, the article incorrectly states that Bush left with a 5.76 unemployment rate. It was actually 7.7 when Obama was sworn in. It left the 5.7 range in mid 2008.
Regardless, Presidents usually have little positive effect, relative to that of congress and even more strongly the general ebb and flow of markets. They can can scare markets, but mostly the President is way down the list of influences on the economy. We are simpletons to always be looking at the President for answers. How often do you make an economic decision based on who is in the White House?
Ruben, you hearing footsteps yet? At least Chris Salcedo blamed the CRA. Its a new day in the realm of hispanic pseudo-conservatism.
The author says:
“I must confess that I along with many conservatives dared to believe that Mr. Obama was different. We wondered: could he really be this unifying, transcendent leader?”
My God … what in the world were you smoking? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, who was paying the slightest attention to what little bit of information was allowed to dribble out of the media (mostly Fox News) about Mr. Obama could possibly have been wondering such a thing — nobody, that is, who knew how to think clearly. Shape up, for crying out loud, before your “hope and change” idealism destroys the country through lack of discernment.
When discussing the economy, we really need to overlay congress with the president to see what is really going on. Instead of blaming Bush for 2008, we need to compare 2008 with 2006. Also, Clinton’s swing to the right corresponded to 1994, which also stands out because of what happened in Congress. Also, Tip O’Neil needs to be kept in mind when discussing deficits under Reagan (where congress actually outspent a near DOUBLING of revenue due to tax cuts but the narrative blames the tax cuts that doubled revenue for the deficit).
I think the article is basically right in its chronology. Remember that due to the increased output of the economy (due to the tax cuts and other factors) the deficit was dropping from 2003 to 2006. It was under 200 billion (not great, but compared with now it seems rather small by comparison, no?) and dropping. Unemployment was, what, in the 5-6% range? All year, though, we were carpet-bombed in the media by how we were in the “worst economy since the great depression”. If I had a dollar for every time the words “failed economic policies of the Bush administration” were repeated during that year I could buy out Bill Gates! The result? The democrats swept into office, and within two years the deficit had increased by several hundred percent. This was the fault of the Pelosi-Reid congress, not Bush. Did Bush put up much of a fight? Unfortunately, no. Does he bear responsibility? Of course! But the inescapable point is that it was not *conservative* policies that were at fault. 2006-2008 brought us TARP, bailouts, handouts-masquerading-as-”tax cuts” and MASSIVE deficit spending. This sabotage brought the economy down into a hole and then everyone (even Glenn Beck) blamed it on Bush. Look, Bush was a feckless conservative. Unlike Reagan, he knew the broad brush things like tax cuts (and to his credit he held firm on those) but on other areas of fiscal policy he did not seem so doctrinaire. I think he just wanted to get along with people and the dems took him to the cleaners.
Also, remember that during this time the financial crisis was building in the background due to the financial stupidity of the CRA and the corruption of Fannie and Freddie. Some republicans (including Bush and even McCain) tried to fix the most obvious problems and were soundly rebuffed by the more liberal dems like Frank and Rangel.
So, IMHO, it is pretty obvious that it was specifically the policies of libs that killed the economy, but they were empowered by Rinos and the poor understanding that Bush seemed to have of the conservatism that he said that he was for. The MSM completed this mess by propagandizing the public for a decade to “save the country from the evil republicans” and we have the perfect storm that gave us the trifecta of Obama-Reid-Pelosi. This is the message that is now finally getting out through the alternative media and the tea parties. We need to articulate it well and kill this narrative that the MSM has constructed. In places like my home state of California this will be a really uphill battle.
no problemo except Payoffs by Reid
What has Reid done for Harrahs? seems to me I remember he got them something not long ago. I don’t have the access to stuff that you do – so fire up your nexis lexis and start digging!
B C, what an infant you are. OK so try 1/2007 to 1/2009, better?
Try as you might infant, it still boils down to 24 months of Congressional control and those little iddy biddy things I mentioned about appropriations which you weren’t man enough to address. And what do you mean by “too late”? Are you saying things were irreversible? If so then why have stimulus packages?
Try this, as Democrats controlled Congress for 24 months, and as your racist president has been in office for 21 months, try and add, that comes to 45 months total that they have either shared power or had total power, you can add I hope? And all 45 of those months they have held the fiscal strings.
Your last sentence in the slop you posted is incoherent, are you trying to babble that a complete change in Administrations doesn’t matter?
No infant, what you are trying to say is that we can’t hold obama and the Dems responsible.
“you’re not allowed to blame obama”, no, he’s only the president & had a huge Dem majority ! Did you actually use the word “deranged”?, and “not allowed”? Stomp your feet sicko, but your racist president must be held responsible, and has been. If you can’t face it, double down on your medicine. Now back into your cave.
Wasting your time on that hapless fool. You get nothing but the daily bleat from the progressive sheep cot from BC. He’s the poster boy for the disposable and gullible useful idiot always willing to get out there and champion the same tired progressive nonsense as long as someone tells him how wicked smart he is. In a single comment he whines about being tagged as BDS ridden while relating and/or alluding to some of the most specious and ignorant BDS positions. You can’t successfully address sublime stupidity like that.