When Bush took office, economy was tanking

[Bob]

Patty hill does not agree.

But when Bush won election in 2000, the economy was in decline.

Bill Clinton left Bush a falling stock market.

People were losing jobs.

That may seem great to Patty but not to me.

[Cigar]

:rollseyes:

[del]

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began [1] (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html). The expansion lasted almost 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

it's silly to lie about things like this, bobarooski

it's not like being a realtor

[Bob]

The normal Democrats come out from under rock.

As usual they failed.

They failed to read my actual words.

[del]

i read your actual lies, bobarooski

do you think we're all as stupid as you apparently are?

[del]

Democrats have been president for 16 of the past 24 years.

Put a republican in charge.

Bush took over a failing economy and managed to swing us out in a few months.

oh, bobarooski

[Green Arrow]

Revisionist history usually addresses stuff that happened 50 or more years ago. It's a bit early to start revising 15 year old history, everyone alive today still remembers what actually happened. Not bound to be a successful revision that way.

[PolWatch]

Revisionist history usually addresses stuff that happened 50 or more years ago. It's a bit early to start revising 15 year old history, everyone alive today still remembers what actually happened. Not bound to be a successful revision that way.

that depends on the state of the memory in question.

[maineman]

a point of clarification. "In decline" does not equate to "tanking". What Obama inherited was indeed a tanking economy. What Bush inherited was far from it.

[Hal Jordan]

that depends on the state of the memory in question.

What were we talking about again?

[donttread]

Patty hill does not agree.

But when Bush won election in 2000, the economy was in decline.

Bill Clinton left Bush a falling stock market.

People were losing jobs.

That may seem great to Patty but not to me.

Right it was the last guy who balanced a budget and oversaw relative peace we should blame. Not 15 years of Bushbama war, corporate welfare, spending and debt. Brillant!

[Mac-7]

Right it was the last guy who balanced a budget and oversaw relative peace we should blame. Not 15 years of Bushbama war, corporate welfare, spending and debt. Brillant!

Republicans in congress balanced the budget - assisted by Billary gutting defense - and the dot com bubble made him look good.

But it was just a bubble.

Clinton ruined the manufacturing sector in America and through it initiated the decline the middle class.

[PolWatch]

Clinton had lots of help....for the first 6 years of his presidency Congress was controlled by repubs.

[Mac-7]

Clinton had lots of help....for the first 6 years of his presidency Congress was controlled by repubs.

She means the LAST 6.

[maineman]

She means the LAST 6.

wasn't it wonderful when a republican congress could actually work together with the president to get something done instead of simply being obstructionist?

[Common]

I do not remember the economy being in decline when bush took office. It was certainly in decline when he left.

Im not saying its not true, im saying I dont remember that.

[Mac-7]

wasn't it wonderful when a republican congress could actually work together with the president to get something done instead of simply being obstructionist?

When Harry Reid and the dems controlled the senate they passed nothing either.

[PolWatch]

She means the LAST 6.

you are correct..

[maineman]

When Harry Reid and the dems controlled the senate they passed nothing either.

do ya think that the GOP filibuster had anything at all to do with that situation?

[Mac-7]

do ya think that the GOP filibuster had anything at all to do with that situation?

Democrats did that too when bush was in office.

Obama never had a budget passed by the democrat senate even though none were filibustered.

They were all voted down by democrats.

[maineman]

Democrats did that too when bush was in office.

Obama never had a budget passed by the democrat senate even though none were filibustered.

They were all voted down by democrats.

classic: you guys did it too! why am I not surprised?

[Mac-7]

classic: you guys did it too! why am I not surprised?

But you did do it too.

and yet you were the one who started crying first.

[maineman]

But you did do it too.

and yet you were the one who started crying first.

crying? hardly. you pointed out that, with the GOP congress, Clinton was able to get things done. I merely suggested that things are different now, cuz they are.

[Mac-7]

crying? hardly. you pointed out that, with the GOP congress, Clinton was able to get things done.

I merely suggested that things are different now, cuz they are.

Not me.

That was the closet Billary voter.

[Bob]

Right it was the last guy who balanced a budget and oversaw relative peace we should blame. Not 15 years of Bushbama war, corporate welfare, spending and debt. Brillant!

First, why do you accept that it is the president who manages the budget? He submits one, but that budget never sees the light of day once Congress is done.

Bill never promised to balance any budget. He wanted to, no doubt, but look seriously at the revenue he enjoyed and you see it's source. Taxed to death, it was the wild dot.com boom. Most of the nation was still in maliaise. I know because I appraised hundreds of homes in his era. I saw who was upgrading homes. Those who made a ton of money off the Dot.coms really made out. I say it was in decline since very soon after Bush took office, he was in a recession. They rarely arrive in a sudden decline on one day or one month. The trend starts earlier. Some wiseacre posted some bit by Goverment pretending to dismiss my argument.

For some, the economy was great. But most people did not cut a fat dollar by owning stocks. They worked on regular jobs.

Clinton waged a hellish war on Yugoslavia. Why he did it is anybody's guess since the country of Yugoslavia was not then using genocide on the Albanians living in Kosovo. (I use the Serb spelling and not the Muslim spelling just so you know.

Before you scream genocide, since when can the USA decide to bomb countries at will?

If it was wrong in Iraq, how could it be correct in Yugoslavia?

A casual look at the stock market will show who gained the most during both Clinton and Obama. By golly it was the rich. They ran up stock prices.

As to the national debt, compare the end day of Bush even to today. The national debt is nearly double the end of Bush yet Obama supporters don't wink as they claim he cut doen the national debt. Why is it still skyrocketing if he cut the national debt? It is on a trend to bury this nation as if in quicksand.

[nic34]

First, why do you accept that it is the president who manages the budget? He submits one, but that budget never sees the light of day once Congress is done.

Bill never promised to balance any budget. He wanted to, no doubt, but look seriously at the revenue he enjoyed and you see it's source. Taxed to death, it was the wild dot.com boom. Most of the nation was still in maliaise. I know because I appraised hundreds of homes in his era. I saw who was upgrading homes. Those who made a ton of money off the Dot.coms really made out. I say it was in decline since very soon after Bush took office, he was in a recession. They rarely arrive in a sudden decline on one day or one month. The trend starts earlier. Some wiseacre posted some bit by Goverment pretending to dismiss my argument.

For some, the economy was great. But most people did not cut a fat dollar by owning stocks. They worked on regular jobs.

Clinton waged a hellish war on Yugoslavia. Why he did it is anybody's guess since the country of Yugoslavia was not then using genocide on the Albanians living in Kosovo. (I use the Serb spelling and not the Muslim spelling just so you know.

Before you scream genocide, since when can the USA decide to bomb countries at will?

If it was wrong in Iraq, how could it be correct in Yugoslavia?

A casual look at the stock market will show who gained the most during both Clinton and Obama. By golly it was the rich. They ran up stock prices.

As to the national debt, compare the end day of Bush even to today. The national debt is nearly double the end of Bush yet Obama supporters don't wink as they claim he cut doen the national debt. Why is it still skyrocketing if he cut the national debt? It is on a trend to bury this nation as if in quicksand.

Do we have to have del explain it to you again, bobski.....?

[Peter1469]

I do not remember the economy being in decline when bush took office. It was certainly in decline when he left.

Im not saying its not true, im saying I dont remember that.

There was a short recession when Bush took office- the Dot Com crash.

[donttread]

Republicans in congress balanced the budget - assisted by Billary gutting defense - and the dot com bubble made him look good.

But it was just a bubble.

Clinton ruined the manufacturing sector in America and through it initiated the decline the middle class.

Bushbama had the self created houusing bubble why didn't that fix their problems?

[Tahuyaman]

Democrats did that too when bush was in office.

Obama never had a budget passed by the democrat senate even though none were filibustered.

They were all voted down by democrats.

the Democrat controlled senate stopped every one.

[donttread]

First, why do you accept that it is the president who manages the budget? He submits one, but that budget never sees the light of day once Congress is done.

Bill never promised to balance any budget. He wanted to, no doubt, but look seriously at the revenue he enjoyed and you see it's source. Taxed to death, it was the wild dot.com boom. Most of the nation was still in maliaise. I know because I appraised hundreds of homes in his era. I saw who was upgrading homes. Those who made a ton of money off the Dot.coms really made out. I say it was in decline since very soon after Bush took office, he was in a recession. They rarely arrive in a sudden decline on one day or one month. The trend starts earlier. Some wiseacre posted some bit by Goverment pretending to dismiss my argument.

For some, the economy was great. But most people did not cut a fat dollar by owning stocks. They worked on regular jobs.

Clinton waged a hellish war on Yugoslavia. Why he did it is anybody's guess since the country of Yugoslavia was not then using genocide on the Albanians living in Kosovo. (I use the Serb spelling and not the Muslim spelling just so you know.

Before you scream genocide, since when can the USA decide to bomb countries at will?

If it was wrong in Iraq, how could it be correct in Yugoslavia?

A casual look at the stock market will show who gained the most during both Clinton and Obama. By golly it was the rich. They ran up stock prices.

As to the national debt, compare the end day of Bush even to today. The national debt is nearly double the end of Bush yet Obama supporters don't wink as they claim he cut doen the national debt. Why is it still skyrocketing if he cut the national debt? It is on a trend to bury this nation as if in quicksand.

Bush set debt records that Obama shattered , but keep voting donkephant because you ain't seen nothing yet?.

[Tahuyaman]

There was a short recession when Bush took office- the Dot Com crash.

correct.

[Bob]

Bush set debt records that Obama shattered , but keep voting donkephant because you ain't seen nothing yet?.

You figure out a way yet for Bush to fight terrorists in two Muslim areas and not spend money?

I don't vote donkey something, I vote for republicans.

I learned a lot of tricks from Democrats when I used to be one.

[maineman]

You figure out a way yet for Bush to fight terrorists in two Muslim areas and not spend money?

I don't vote donkey something, I vote for republicans.

I learned a lot of tricks from Democrats when I used to be one.

except that the terrorists in Iraq didn't show up until after we did. If they wanted to kill Americans, once we invaded Iraq, they didn't need to fly airplanes into buildings half way around the world, they could just take the bus.

you missed that part.

[Bob]

except that the terrorists in Iraq didn't show up until after we did. If they wanted to kill Americans, once we invaded Iraq, they didn't need to fly airplanes into buildings half way around the world, they could just take the bus.

you missed that part.

Actually the change in the Iraq government brought terrorists. But hell, Saddam himself was one.

[Peter1469]

Actually the change in the Iraq government brought terrorists. But hell, Saddam himself was one.

Saddam supported terrorists. As a sovereign he technically is outside the definition of terrorist.

[Bob]

Saddam supported terrorists. As a sovereign he technically is outside the definition of terrorist.

Well, can't say you are wrong. Good point and we won't debate that one.

[maineman]

Actually the change in the Iraq government brought terrorists. But hell, Saddam himself was one.

the overthrow of Saddam by the US military and the subsequent occupation by them brought the anti-American terrorists to Iraq. Saddam supported terrorists, to be sure, but he supported arab nationalist terrorists, not Islamic extremist terrorists. The former did not fly airplanes into our skyscrapers, the latter did. And, when we brought all of our troops there, rather than having to fly half way around the world to kill Americans, they just rode the bus, disembarked, left their suitcases with IED's next to the roadside and went and had a coffee while another cluster of Americans were killed or maimed. How CONVENIENT for them.

[Bob]

the overthrow of Saddam by the US military and the subsequent occupation by them brought the anti-American terrorists to Iraq. Saddam supported terrorists, to be sure, but he supported arab nationalist terrorists, not Islamic extremist terrorists. The former did not fly airplanes into our skyscrapers, the latter did. And, when we brought all of our troops there, rather than having to fly half way around the world to kill Americans, they just rode the bus, disembarked, left their suitcases with IED's next to the roadside and went and had a coffee while another cluster of Americans were killed or maimed. How CONVENIENT for them.


I am sure (eyeroll) we invited in Terrorists. Right. Keep believing that. :rollseyes:

[Bob]

the overthrow of Saddam by the US military and the subsequent occupation by them brought the anti-American terrorists to Iraq. Saddam supported terrorists, to be sure, but he supported arab nationalist terrorists, not Islamic extremist terrorists. The former did not fly airplanes into our skyscrapers, the latter did. And, when we brought all of our troops there, rather than having to fly half way around the world to kill Americans, they just rode the bus, disembarked, left their suitcases with IED's next to the roadside and went and had a coffee while another cluster of Americans were killed or maimed. How CONVENIENT for them.

This is so funny I can't let it go.

I bet you blame Ike for his Normandy invasion where he could easily have created terrorists.

I am so amused you blame our service chiefs for importing terrorists.

[maineman]

I am sure (eyeroll) we invited in Terrorists. Right. Keep believing that. :rollseyes:

we didn't need to INVITE them.... our mere presence there was invitation enough. AQ was NOT in Iraq before we were in Iraq. They came because we were there.... again: bus tickets versus plane tickets. If ya wanna kill Americans, which travel option is more economical and more efficient?

[maineman]

This is so funny I can't let it go.

I bet you blame Ike for his Normandy invasion where he could easily have created terrorists.

I am so amused you blame our service chiefs for importing terrorists.

where have I ever blamed our service chiefs?

Those of us who spent our careers in the military got used to picking up and going wherever the civilian command authority told us to go and to do whatever they wanted us to do for as long as they wanted us to do it.

BUSH took us into Iraq. Not the JCS.

I gotta say... sometimes I think you're either really stupid, or your just goofin'

[Bob]

we didn't need to INVITE them.... our mere presence there was invitation enough. AQ was NOT in Iraq before we were in Iraq. They came because we were there.... again: bus tickets versus plane tickets. If ya wanna kill Americans, which travel option is more economical and more efficient?

Yeah, Afghanistan had them and we ran them off. Explain the attraction by Al Qaeda to Iraq?

Could be Saddam's pals came to help him.

[Bob]

where have I ever blamed our service chiefs?

Those of us who spent our careers in the military got used to picking up and going wherever the civilian command authority told us to go and to do whatever they wanted us to do for as long as they wanted us to do it.

BUSH took us into Iraq. Not the JCS.

I gotta say... sometimes I think you're either really stupid, or your just goofin'

Oh I am so sure Bush had grand plans to import terrorists. But he was in the USA and you claim they showed up where? :rollseyes:

Where the troops were.

But troops ran out the AQ from Afghanistan.

Why waste time in Iraq?

[maineman]

Why waste time in Iraq?

I agree.

But, by going there, all the bad guys from the region were a bus ride away, so why not go kill some American GI's on the cheap?

[maineman]

Yeah, Afghanistan had them and we ran them off. Explain the attraction by Al Qaeda to Iraq?

Could be Saddam's pals came to help him.

why did AQ come to Iraq? Saddam was overthrown in a week... they barely had time to pack their prayer rugs and catch the bus, but the attraction was not saving Saddam - he was already in his hidey hole and out of power - the attraction was US servicemen who could be slaughtered on the cheap.

[Bob]

I agree.

But, by going there, all the bad guys from the region were a bus ride away, so why not go kill some American GI's on the cheap?

I get it now. No Iraqis planted IEDs. Thanks.

[del]

what a complete moran

[Bob]

why did AQ come to Iraq? Saddam was overthrown in a week... they barely had time to pack their prayer rugs and catch the bus, but the attraction was not saving Saddam - he was already in his hidey hole and out of power - the attraction was US servicemen who could be slaughtered on the cheap.

Yeah, you guys were chumps for those IEDs.

Say ever heard of metal detectors?

I thought they had those bomb sniffing machines?

Is this supposed to be Bush's fault or the commanders fault for being incompetent?

[maineman]

I get it now. No Iraqis planted IEDs. Thanks.nope. Before I was torn... Are you an idiot, or are you just pulling our collective legs. Posts like this tip me over towards the former.

[maineman]

Yeah, you guys were chumps for those IEDs.

Say ever heard of metal detectors?

I thought they had those bomb sniffing machines?

Is this supposed to be Bush's fault or the commanders fault for being incompetent?For the record, I'm a Navy man. I was never a chump for IED's.

so let me get this straight, however...
You are blaming our service chiefs for terrorists using IED's against our troops, but give Dubya a free pass for ordering our troops into harm's way there in the first place???

[Bob]

For the record, I'm a Navy man. I was never a chump for IED's.

so let me get this straight, however...
You are blaming our service chiefs for terrorists using IED's against our troops, but give Dubya a free pass for ordering our troops into harm's way there in the first place???

Don't blame Bush. He thought he sent in the experts.

[birddog]

i read your actual lies, bobarooski

do you think we're all as stupid as you apparently are?

If you don't believe Bob, Perhaps you are as you say, stupid!:rollseyes:

[Bob]

Revisionist history usually addresses stuff that happened 50 or more years ago. It's a bit early to start revising 15 year old history, everyone alive today still remembers what actually happened. Not bound to be a successful revision that way.

It is very difficult to call an economy about to tank a good economy. Economies don't improve nor tank on one particular day. Even the great depression started post 1929

Bush had to recover the Clinton economy.

[maineman]

where was the economy when Bush took office, and where was it when he left?

[donttread]

I think it was probably Nixon's fault?

[zelmo1234]

crying? hardly. you pointed out that, with the GOP congress, Clinton was able to get things done. I merely suggested that things are different now, cuz they are.

There are a few things to consider. #1 Being that Clinton did not threaten to veto anything that was not his plan.

And #2 after his first 2 years, Clinton used triangulation and was governing much like Reagan did.

He even gave the rich a bigger tax cut that Reagan in 96

But for those that can remember the 2000 election? Remember it is the economy Stupid! Gore lost because the nations economy was Stagnate at best and sliding toward recession at worst.

Clinton was the benefactor of Reagan and Bush 1 Restoring the Military and the position of the USA as the worlds only Super power.

GWB's Tenure as president Say 911, the middle eastern wars, Voted for by Democrats too, and the bursting of not only the end of the dot com bubble, but the housing collapse which was also due in large part to the policies of Carter and Clinton. He has a massive hurricane outburst, and several other natural disasters as well. Katrina being the big one.

So Bob's OP while not totally correct gets the context right. Those that only go by the legacy they here in the media are actually the ones that are rewriting history.

[zelmo1234]

where was the economy when Bush took office, and where was it when he left?

First let me say that Bush had the opportunity to make changed that would have at least made the Housing collapse easier to get though.

But who were the Presidents that put the policies in place that caused the housing collapse?

[Chris]

Some people need to keep the insults to themselves. Trading insults is bad faith.

[Common]

Actually Bob is right, you cant change the truth to make it the way you want it.

What makes Bob right is that the Tech bubble that made the clinton era an economic powerhouse, died in 2000 just as bush took office.
What created the economic hole at the end of the bush presidency was his tax cuts for the rich and the wars.

[Cigar]

http://rlv.zcache.com.au/obama_won_get_over_it_bumper_sticker-p128951048716148961en8y3_400.jpg#Obama%20won%20get %20over%20it%20400x400

[Common]

http://rlv.zcache.com.au/obama_won_get_over_it_bumper_sticker-p128951048716148961en8y3_400.jpg#Obama won get over it 400x400


http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh3/robmffm/MonkeyStinkyButt.gif

[Cigar]

http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/band-aid-truth-hurts.jpg

[Common]

http://joeforamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/band-aid-truth-hurts.jpg


http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp253/dewolflangrill/monkey_dance.gif


http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad179/dechristianized/alexssss.jpg

[Common Sense]

Wtf?

[Cigar]

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/bush-monkey-20120830-250.jpg

[texan]

:rollseyes:


Absolute fact! :but:

[texan]

people like Cigar live in fantasyland and never question a democrat........Even when it is pretty well known.....

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/

Q: Were Clinton’s policies responsible for the 1990s’ economic growth?
A: He deserves part of the credit, but many factors were at work.
FULL QUESTION
I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"
FULL ANSWER
What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001). Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession (http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/) in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.

[Bob]

where was the economy when Bush took office, and where was it when he left?

You are supposed to tell us since we are to infer you are the expert.

[Cigar]

Absolute fact! :but:

http://www.vogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/images_vogue_feature_2009_Jan_Barack_Obama_main_pi ct.jpg_article_singleimage.jpg

[Bob]

people like Cigar live in fantasyland and never question a democrat........Even when it is pretty well known.....

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/

Q: Were Clinton’s policies responsible for the 1990s’ economic growth?
A: He deserves part of the credit, but many factors were at work.
FULL QUESTION
I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"
FULL ANSWER
What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001). Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession (http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/) in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.


I got a very close up view of the "Clinton economy."

Believe it or not, for most of his era, housing was not in a healthy state. Had I known it was going to bust wide open, I would have purchased as much property as I could. And I was appraising property. We saw on a daily basis what happened to housing.

I can't think of a single Clinton policy that caused prices of homes to rise.

If he was trying to take credit for the dot.com boom, sure at that point were he truthful, I would blame Bill for a boom to the economy. But he would also take the blame for the dot.com bust.

Because for the most part, most of us did not buy stocks to the point they amounted to much of our wealth. Those who were able to buy low and get out just before Bush took over made some real money.

I don't recall any stock tips coming from Bill Clinton.

I call the economy in decline when Bush took over for what happened to the stock market. And soon after he took office, as the poster above says, the economy was on the razor of taking a dump to the point it was then known as a recession. Bush had only several months and then it came as the recession.

It alarmed Bush to the point he chopped income taxes and handed out cash to speed up the economy.

[Bob]

Democrats act all pissed off when I report all was not nearly as well with the Clinton economy as they claim it was. But this is not a knock on Bill Clinton. For a president, seems to me he pretty well followed republican teachings on the economy. I can't fault him for that.