Yes he did, those same talking points you blame on Clinton were the spin we heard all through the Bush era. Talk about an ironic post.
They all do it, even the great ones. People only oppose it when it fits their narrative.
1 Like
Back it up KC⌠Show me where Bush always âBlamedâ ClintonâŚ
He said he Inherited the Recession, but he did not blame ClintonâŚ
His Quote Directly âWhen I took office, our economy was beginning a recession,â Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. âThen our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals. But Iâm certain of this: We wonât let fear undermine our economy and weâre not going to let fraud undermine it either.â http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/economy/bush_cheney/
Chenney on the other hand⌠well that is an entire different subjectâŚ
The thing that bothers me is that if You go to liberal sites they always say âHe blamedâ Clinton⌠But in truth, he pointed out things that did not succeed under Clinton, but he never tried to pin it on him, Like Obama does with GWBâŚ
You canât be serious, you just provided plenty of backing to the claim.
Bush had to clean up after Clinton? What was the problem exactly, the great economy or the surpluses? The dot com bubble? That ended in 2000 right? On March 10, 2000 the NASDAQ peaked at 5,132.52. I donât think we were going into any recession when Clinton left office. In fact I remember quite clearly that Alan Greenspan was saying the biggest problem was that we might pay the debt down too fast. Is there any president in history that was handed a better economy than Bush? It kind of makes those talking points hard to take seriously, but I donât blame them for trying.
On the other hand the article I posted is from a conservative magazine that has no interest in generating democratic talking points. Remember when Steve Forbes ran for president? He didnât run as a democrat. When Obama came into office conservatives predicted all kinds of calamity. (Grasshopper even thinks they actually happened.) But according to Forbes magazine Obamaâs economy was better than Reaganâs ( a pretty low bar IMO considering that Reagan doubled the national debt which doesnât seem to trouble fiscal conservatives much) and was one of the best in history.
All the hate for Obama has astonished me since day one, but it really astonishes me now. What do conservatives want? Every single economic metric has improved under Obama except labor participation which has been on a glide path down for decades and mostly corresponds to the retirement of the baby boomers. No wonder republicans donât talk too much about the economy now and are actually talking about wealth inequality! Good for them. I hope theyâre serious about tackling that problem.
1 Like
Interesting comments âMikeHâ. Interesting because itâs really difficult for most of us to recognize or understand the truth. I mean we get so much information from so many different sources and it all contradicts everything we hear from everyone, all the time. How do we know who is right and who is wrong, who is telling the truth and who is not, who is producing âfactsâ that are really truth and who is not?
You seem to have come up with the solution to being able to discern what is factual truth and what is not. At least that is what I think you are trying to show. You believe BO is a great president while others do not, and it is all based on factual evidence. In fact, the country is pretty much split down the middle, right? So who is telling the truth and who is not?
Iâm just wondering how you do it. Itâs pretty impressive actually.
Please donât be offended by these comments as Iâm not sure how else to phrase them. I donât want to be told I need to apologize when Iâm asking a real question. What methods do you use to determine that the claims made about BO are supported with factual evidence and are therefore true and believable?
Something that I think people are missing is the fact that just because something happened during a presidency doesnât mean that the president caused it. Blaming Bush for the financial meltdown that occurred during his presidency, simply because he was president, is like blaming Bush for 911. Crediting Obama for the financial recovery that has happened since is like giving him credit for the fact that WalMart made a profit. In order for us to blame a president for something that happened, we need to realistically analyze the policies that caused it to happen. In the case of the financial meltdown, it was not policies of the Bush administration that caused the meltdown.
With that said, Bush was a very bad president. He was a bad president because of the policies and the deals that came out of the first four years of his presidency. When the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, bad things happened. People got paid off. It was embarrassing.
Obama also is/was a bad president. The sweetheart deals that came out of the first few years of his presidency were bad for the country. We gave money to multiple companies that paid off the leadership and then closed their doors. Over the course of Obamaâs presidency, we have alienated allies, made a mess of health care and caused the gap between the wealthy and middle class to increase.
So, who were the good presidents. Although I dislike Bill Clinton because of his suspect morals and his contempt for the law, he was a good president. Why? Because he was willing to work with a Republican congress and balance the budget, reform the welfare system and create policies that, in my opinion, minimized the coming recession.
Reagan was also a good president. He also stepped across the aisle and passed legislation that built the economy. He acted for the good of the country and formulated a successful foreign policy that not only benefited our country, but also benefited the world by forcing the downfall of the USSR.
Unfortunately, I donât think we will have another good president in my lifetime. Increasingly, we have polar ideologies that preach that stepping across the aisle and coming to agreements with your adversary is tantamount to treason. We villainize anyone who creates friendships in the opposing party. Ironically, some of the worst offenders are those that long for a return of Reagan politics. Reagan was a specialist in working with Democrats. The hallmark of todayâs politics is that we canât find common ground and when one party gains enough control, it is time to pay off anyone who supports them.
1 Like
Great post.
I agree with every one of your comments regarding each one of our past presidents, starting with Reagan, including Clinton.
Of course you realize that your âopinionâ doesnât completely fit with the truth and real âfactsâ presented by âMikeHâ so you need to consider that and possibly rethink your opinion based on his factual evidence.
You donât think its possible to âdiscern facts?â Arenât these are the things you learn in school even at a very young age. Was there some kind of agenda involved there too so if you can find out your teacher did something bad you donât have to do youâre homework? Iâm honestly confused, but since you canât let it go, Iâm can see its difficult for you. Perhaps you saddle yourself with beliefs first, then try to make them fit your presupposition? I can see how that might be a tough way to get at truth. Is that it? Its true that there are some sources that are trustworthy, newspapers, encyclopedias, etc., and some that arenât Fox News, but other than that I donât know how to answer this in a way that would appeal to you. If youâre saying all sources are imperfect, or that no one interprets evidence perfectly, well then I agree with you. If youâre saying we canât tell if Jobs went up or down under which presidents or how many people became insured, etc. then youâre point is completely lost on me. What am I missing?
What are you missing?
Wow⌠not sure exactly what to respond with but here is at least something to think about.
I believe you have the puzzle pieces laid out on a table and you see them as âfactsâ or âevidenceâ for what you believe and what you think is real but you just havenât started putting the pieces together. Thus, you think you know what the puzzle looks like, but until you actually put it together, you really donât. Unfortunately life doesnât come out of a puzzle box so we really have no picture to look at. There are simple, easy methods for putting the puzzle together, but for a variety of reasons, most people donât try to do it. They get distracted or they think they have finished already. Nobody has finished the puzzle, outside of Jesus Christ, so hopefully we keep trying. If you really want to see the picture of the puzzle you have to keep trying to put it together.
I know there are some posters here who will understand what I am saying when they read this post. I donât anticipate that you will but I am hopeful. If not, that is okay. This is not a personal attack so please donât take it that way. It is just an observation and honestly, itâs okay. You donât have to understand or better said, you donât have to âwant toâ understand.
Totally fine with me. 
Wow its kind of amazing how you understand me so well! Good thing I donât bother you. I canât imagine how you would act if I did! Maybe youâd only pester me with 4 or 5 ridiculous posts? Thanks for the preachy stuff though. I always take my religious tips from people that act like you.
Jim, Mike H. will never believe that it is possible that he has flaws in his perceptual functioning and will attack whenever that thought is brought to his attention. A practice that I find to be habitual for far left-wing libs. No since trying further. Those of us on the right believe we are correct but also recognize that we donât hold all the truth. Let it go Jim, at least in this case.
You donât know me. You think you do but you donât.
Likewise I donât know or understand you. Iâm not preaching and Iâm not giving you âreligious tipsâ so you can calm down.
Youâve said it before, so letâs take your advice and end this conversation now. If you would like the last comment, feel free to respond. Letâs stick to BYU football/sports, okay? 
Totally agree with last post Jim.
Amen-football-you guys gave me a headache-As a registered Democrat I have voted pretty much half and half-I voted for Reagan-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Romney-all in regards to how I would like our country to function. Anymore I have a harder time recognizing who we are-it has become less a country of the people and more a country of the courts Itâs disturbing because things are harder for me to recognize. It dsturbs me on a personal level when even eating becomes a major chore. I have to find out where the food was grown and decide if those circumstances are even healthy. I can vote for a certain agenda and win, but end up losing anyway because of the courts. I can be responsible and not break the law, but I have a hard time going to the store and buying .22 shells-Yes-all very confusing-football is much simpler-no wonder people are apathetic