January 3rd 2007
This is a history lesson. It is the truth and nothing can change it.
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77!
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%!
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%!
George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment…to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy”, and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA!
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush…REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…
THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama would be saying if he was honest is “I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.”
Tags: Economy, Leftists, Moonbats, Obama Boom
Excellent points.
If these points—and Obama’s connection to them—were distilled into a series of ads that ran from now until Election Day 2012, there would be about 50 safe-seat Democrats, maximum, left in the entire federal government, and a number of others who had been tarred and feathered.
Not true. Job Growth under Bush was anemic.
Bush’s Liberal polices were a failure. The reason the unemployment number was low because he inherited low numbers. Even at the peak of the 2001-2003 recession it went no higher than 6.2%. So bringing it down to 4.6% is nothing to crow about.
Annual GDP Growth under Clinton/Gingrich Congress was 3.6%
Annual GDP growth under Bush/Tom Delay Congress/Nancy Pelosi Congress was an anemic 2.6%
Bush was an economic failure. Progressive economic whether a Republican or Democratic don’t work. It’s time for Conservatives to stop defending Bush’s failed economic policies.
Heart of the problem.
if one uses non-anualized aka real gdp, the truth. then we actually have been in a negative gdp growth, a recession since 2001
chart here
the other charts that the govt uses are annualized so that there is a positive reporting bias, meaning that if gdp goes down 10% in one year then goes down ONLY 6% the next year that year is a 4% gain! viola!
the fact is you are still down 16 from baseline.
so, this economic problem started under bush in 2000/2001.
Bush and Obama both suck on economic and fiscal policy. They are both Economic failures as presidents.
buzzsawmonkey wrote:
that is true, the dems did not help the econ situation at all they made a bad situation far worse.
@ coldwarrior:
It actually started under Clinton in 2000. The bust of the Tech Bubble is what put us where we are. The Bush Administration facilitated the housing bubble to bouy things a bit, but when that blew, the whole house of cards came down.
the fact is the president ‘owns’ the economy. that is just how it is and should be as he is, after all, the executive.
@ Rodan:
jobs chart, using ‘real data’
downward trend there as well
@ coldwarrior:
so, this economic problem started under bush in 2000/2001.
Bingo! The Housing bubble covered up the anemic job and GDP growth. I did a post on America’s lost decade.
Fact wages are down from 2000. Even during the “Bush Boom”, wages never recovered to their 2000 level.
@ Iron Fist:
tech bubble, questionable fed activity, 9/11, WOT costs, increased govt spending.
we were due
Iron Fist wrote:
Very true. The Tech bubble bursting should have been the warning sign. Bush dropped the ball and Obama put us over a cliff.
@ Rodan:
The slide started under Clinton. Bush was elected at the end of 2000, but did not take office until 2001.
@ coldwarrior:
Bush’s deficit spending weighed down our growth.
@ Rodan:
in the 2000′s reaL wealth was not being created, living on credit somehow got confused with wealth.
I sure hope we can defeat G. W. Bush in 2012!
@ Iron Fist:
He still didn’t do anything to fix our structural problems. He doesn’t get a pass on me for his failed Economic/Fiscal policy. Did the bubble burst under Clinton, yes. But Bush should have enacted an Economic Conservative agenda. Instead he enacted Progressive polices. If not for the Housing Boom, he would have had a worse record than he did.
coldwarrior wrote:
Yup!
@ coldwarrior:
I’ve made that mistake myself, in my personal finances, and now the time has come to pay all of that off. I think a lot of Americans are there. What does personal debt to GDP look like? I bet is is as scary as the Federal Debt.
Mike C. wrote:
That’s why we are trying to prevent Romney from getting the GOP nomination.
@ Iron Fist:
We all made the mistake.
Iron Fist wrote:
he did nothing to fix the underlying problems. replacing real wealth with easy credit was a quick fix…then comes the drag of increased deficits…
Mike C. wrote:
or a bush ‘clone’. learn from the mistakes of the past.
@ coldwarrior:
The Tech Bubble Burst should have been a warning sign. Had Bush enacted Economic and Fiscal reform when he had 80% approval after 9/11, None of this would be happening and I would be applauding Bush. Instead, he used his political capital to Spread Democracy in Iraq. Itw as a lost opportunity.
I wiosh he had fought for Social Security reform as hard as he did to invade Iraq.
@ coldwarrior:
Mitt Romney = Bush III.
Iron Fist wrote:
household debt is 13 trillion, the gdp is about 15 trillion.
@ coldwarrior:
And the Dems’ “It’s Bush’s fault!” chorus is getting a bit weak, so we need to make certain we’re all chipping in.
This is politics, you know, not physics or mathematics.
all that said, obama is far far worse.
@ Mike C.:
Nothing was Bush’s fault. He was the greatest president ever! He was just a bystander and not responsible for anything!
coldwarrior wrote:
Didn’t this start with the tech bubble burst in 2000…under Bill Clinton?
Mike C. wrote:
no, its economics mike. the dismal science. sorry but facts are facts and poo-pooing them as politics is intellectually vacant.
@ coldwarrior:
That is still pretty hefty. We have become a credit heavy culture, and that needs to change. It is certainly changing in my personal life. I am going to be paying down debt for some time to come. I have come to hate debt with a passion, and I want to get rid of mine as quickly as I can.
coldwarrior wrote:
Bush was a Burglar, Obama is Serial Rapist/killer and Cult leader all rolled up into one!
@ coldwarrior:
Bush did nothing wrong. He was an innocent bystander!
remeber, he was a republican and the GOP is awesome!
We have to be loyal to the Party!
Rodan wrote:
our side is supposed to get economics right and create real wealth.
@ Macker:
After further review….yeah, Bush dropped the ball. He should have just nuked Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the Magic Kingdom™!
@ coldwarrior:
The politics of the situation are every bit as important as the econoimcs. Bush was a political failure even though he was a two-term President because he did not fight for ihis ideas in the political arena. He allowed the Left to attack him unanswered for eight years. That culture of acquiesance is part of what brought us Obama. McCain ran as the passive candidate, and lost. I am very much afraid that we are going to be stuck with a repeat of that this coming year.
@ Macker:
Can I get an Amen?
AMEN!!!11ty!!
Iron Fist wrote:
Well said, well said!
That is why for 2012, I want to get it right. The Right can not afford another Bush type Presidency.
@ Iron Fist:
SO SAY WE ALL! 8)
Macker wrote:
Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Iron Fist:
some debt is necessary and good. a mortgage on a house you can afford and maybe a car payment on a car you can afford, plus a credit card for emergencies. these are good for the economy.
Macker wrote:
most cost effective!
@ Iron Fist:
the executive gets the blame, that is why he is the executive, he is ultimately responsible
@ coldwarrior:
And applying any sort of science, dismal or otherwise, to what is going to be an emotional, political (but I repeat myself) election is self-defeating. If Rodan would kick-start his brain, he might recognize that in his statements regarding Obama’s cult status.
If I was James “Jimmy the Snake” Carville, and in charge, I’d be trolling every so-called right wing blog for exactly these discussions and broadcasting them near and far. “See -- these guys think their own guys are horrible!” And in fact, that is exactly what the current Dems and the media are doing -- promoting any and all evidence of how splintered the right is. And it’s working.
@ Iron Fist:
@ Macker:
@ coldwarrior:
I think Bush meant well but was not prepared for the Progressive assault, Rise of Islam or economic changes that had occurred. He would have been a good peace time President. We need a visionary leader in the 2000′s. Bush was not that. He was the wrong man for the wrong times. He would have been better being President in the 90′s.
@ Mike C.:
i will not yields facts to party loyalty; even if these facts hurt my side.
our side is fractured, this is going to be a nasty primary/convention.
@ Mike C.:
Do you want to defend the Bush record?
Be our guest.
Let’s go fact vs. Fact. You have a soft spot for Bush and that’s admirable. But we are dealing in facts.
Bush was an economic and political failure. Do you deny this fact?
Bush was a Rockefeller Liberal Republican and NOT a Conservative like Reagan. Do you deny this fact?
If what I stated above is not true, please provide facts to back up your disagreement.
@ Rodan:
Proof of Bush’s progressive “Compassionate Conservatism” is found in Medicare part “D”. Why should I be taxed to pay for Warren Buffet’s perscription drugs just because he is old? He can more than afford to pay for his drugs, as I pay for mine. That was a progressive abomination that should have never seen the light of day.
@ Rodan:
I’ve always held the opinion that the Pяogressive assault stemmed from the fact of how the 2000 Election turned out.
@ Iron Fist:
Do you think it will ever be possible to repeal Medicare Part D?
Rodan wrote:
No. What I want is Obama out of the White House come January 2013. I’ll leave preventing W from moving in again up to you. I’m sure you can do it.
@ Rodan:
i take bush over his dad, clinton, and obama any day. that doesnt mean he didnt make mistakes. hell, no one is perfect
Macker wrote:
good luck with that! it can be doen but it has to be done slowly and with much explaining and positive private market alternatives.
@ Macker:
Probably not. I am hopeful that one day we willl means test it. If we want to help people in poverty buy their perscriptions, fine, but let’s not pretend it isn’t welfare. And especially let’s not tax the middle class to pay for welfare for the rich retirees. That is insane.
@ coldwarrior:
I would take Clinton over Baby Bush because of Economics. But hey either of them is preferable to this POS False Messiah Cult Leader we have!
@ Mike C.:
We will do all we can to stop Romney (W’s clone).
Ok an intelelcutally honest question.
I know you want Obama out, but is a Progressive Republican really any better? If lets Romney wins and governs just as Obama lite, will you defend him like you did Bush. Or will you turn on him for being a Progressive?
Just curious.
@ Rodan:
Clinton killed 80 men, women, and children in the name of gun control. He was an awful President, and only looked good because the tech sector took off. The tech sector would have taken off in Mickey Mouse had been President as long as Mickey didn’t do something stupid like try to break up Micor$oft…
@ Rodan:
clinton was good on economics after the congress (newt) pushed him to the right. but it was his choice to move to the right, so he gets the credit as the executive
Macker wrote:
100% correct. Bush didn’t seal the deal there.
@ coldwarrior:
I think Bush would have been perfect for the 90′s. He was more of a managerial type. In the 2000′s we need a visionary leader. We did get one in 2008, but it was an Evil Un-American Vision.
another sad chart:
the decline of the dollar
@ coldwarrior:
Lower dollar means lower standard of living.
@ Iron Fist:
Newt and the GOP Congress actually deserve more of the credit.
Rodan wrote:
Well, just yesterday you were saying that we’re all doomed no matter what, so does it really matter? Or is that not the case today?
@ Rodan:
I don’t think Яomney is a clone of GWB per se. More along the line of a different model. Like, say, differentiating between Twos and Fives. Ones are out, because they are Atheists. 8)
@ Rodan:
Yes, a busness-friendly legislative environment will lead to better job growth. The GOP forgot that in the 2000s. Neither party is worth a bucket of warm piss, IMHO, but the Republicans have the advantage of not being evil. That is, unfortuantely, the situation we find ourselves in today.
@ Mike C.:
Yes, we are doomed because the GOP elites want Romney. Replacing a 3rd World Liberation Marxist with a Progressive is not the answer. If it was an Economic Conservative replacing Obama, I would feel optimistic.
But since the powers that be will shove Romney down our throats, we are doooomed ™.
@ Iron Fist:
That’s why I don’t trust the GOP. Tom Delay was a criminal and an outright Progressive. Bohener was a lackey of Delay. A Romney Presidency with Boehner and McConnell will be a disaster for the right. That’s why if Romney would some how beat Obama, Conservatives should bolt the GOP and form a new Party. That way, our ideology will not be tarnished with Romney’s Liberal polices.
@ Macker:
Good point. He’s a different model Cylon.
@ Rodan:
we arent doomed yet.
the pumps are primed, there is tons of money sitting in the banks ready to fund expansions. get some stability, cut some regulations, reduce govt spending, drill drill drill build nukes, help manufacturing move back on shore, and we can be kicking ass again in a few years.
funemployment chart
“The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.”
@ coldwarrior:
None of which is going to get done it today’s political environment. If we get a Republican President, we may end Obama’s disasterous moratorium on domestic energy production, but we won’t be building many nuke plants. Not unless Congress gets rid of the EPA entirely. And that just isn’t going to happen. It isn’t politically doable, no matter how economically advisable it is.
@ coldwarrior:
If Romney somehow wins it all, we need to destroy his Presidency. Then in 2016 elect a Conservative.
@ coldwarrior:
So in reality, we are at or above Depression levels of unemployment. Comparing apples to apples we are, at any rate. The GOP should be pounding this, but they are a bunch of spineless old women when it comes to confronting the Democrats.
@ Iron Fist:
Even with a Republican President like Romney don’t hold your breath. Romney is a green believer and is a supporter of the EPA. That’s why should he be President, Conservatives need to revolt and destroy him politically. If not, we will get Andrew Coumo in 2016 and say bye bye America!
@ Iron Fist:
these are very simple steps, very easy to do if the gop wins the house/senate/white house.
do these things and turn the economy, and thereby destroying the democrats for a generation.
@ Iron Fist:
They rather bash the Tea Party and support OWS.
@ coldwarrior:
If we get the right Republican. If its Romney, aint happening.
Iron Fist wrote:
we are in a depression if we go by real gdp numbers.
6 years of negative gdp growth.
a recession is two or more quarters of negative growth, a depression is long term negative growth
Rodan wrote:
i still dont think romney wins the nomination. his polling numbers are abysmal away from NH.
@ Rodan:
He, like Gingirch, was/is a big government conservative.
@ coldwarrior:
And Obama still stands a good chance of being re-elected. I admit I don’t have much hope for our long-term future. We are well and truly fucked, and ill-served by our entire political class.
Pray for a brokered convention.
Rodan wrote:
No you do not destroy a Republican presidency, you try to change it if it is not to your satisfaction. Destroying a Republican presidency will get you another Barack Obama.
some encouraging polling data…
But while 18-to-29 year-old Americans are reliable Democrats, their enthusiasm for Obama and presidential politics has waned, setting the stage for an uphill struggle to turn out the vote.
Forty-nine percent of millennial voters approve of Obama, according to the Pew Research Center, down 23 points from February 2009. They are also the least interested in or engaged with the current campaign, the study found.
Only 17 percent of millennials said they are following election news closely, while just 13 percent said they’ve given a lot of thought to the candidates, a 15 point drop from the same period four years ago.
@ Speranza:
Romney will not dio anything for us Conservatives. He’s a Progressive. If Conservatives roll over and support him like they did Bush, then we will get another Obama.
If Conservatives revolt and stop Romney’s Progressive agenda, then in 2016 we primary Romney and replace him with Marco Rubio/Bobby Jindal/Nikki Haley/Pat Toomey/Allen West/Susana Martinez. Or worse case a new Party.
Speranza wrote:
I will be here in Tampa for that. I will see if I can get a press pass to live blog.
I’m a rabble rouser so I might try to get a revolt going!
@ Speranza:
I would and will attack Romney if he fails to govern as a conservative.
OTOH, if he pulls a 180 and actually starts listening to his base and governing accordingly I’ll defend every decision he makes to that end.
To hold back simply because he happens to be a registered Republican would be both foolish and insulting to my and others integrity. I simply don’t care about party affiliation.
Interesting read:
Holder’s Racial politics
@ Speranza:
I agree with you there. We do everything we possibly can (legally) to get Romney to tack right if he is elected. I don’t hold out much hope for that, but if we have both the House and the Senate, maybe we can make a run at replacing Boehner and McConnell with some decent people.
@ Bumr50:
Agreed! Once Obama is gone, Romney will be enemy #1 for me. He will have to earn my support. If he actually does Conservative things, I will then not attack him. I doubt he will since he’s a Leftist so I am ready to have daily Romney bashing threads come November 6th.
@ Iron Fist:
I guess November 6th in case of a Romney win we will become political opponents.
At least we will still bash Islam together!
Iron Fist wrote:
Exactly. Quite concur!
I can tell if Romney is president that my threads will be war zones. I hate to argue with friends
, but my nation’s survival is stake. I will not put Party loyalty over principle.
@ Rodan:
And the Democrats. Don’t forget who the main enemy is.
@ Speranza:
We will have top have debate threads ready! You defending President Romney and me going against him.
I think it will be cool in a way. It shows we are not a monolith like some blog of a washed up Jazz Guitarists who hates Pets!
Rodan wrote:
And Pam Geller…
@ Iron Fist:
If Romney becomes President, my nick will be permanently called Rightwing Rebel.
My first post if Romney wins will be called Rodan writes no more. I will be Rightwing Rebel after that.
Although my Pro-Israel threads, anti-Islam and anti-Progressive threads I might still write under Rodan.
@ Speranza:
@ Iron Fist:
Check out my Holder thread.
@ Rodan:
I’ve already commented on it. Holder is dispicable. I still think Janet Reno was worse, though. She was the worst AG we’ve ever had, bar none.
Iron Fist wrote:
I think that she and Charles Johnson’s feud was because they had way too much in common then any so called differences.
Iron Fist wrote:
John Mitchell and Ramsey Clark dissenting on that.
@ Speranza:
Historically the worse feuds have been between people who are similiar. Hitler vs. Stalin is an example.
I saw a good documentary about Mussolini last night. He should have followed his initial instincts and not buddy up with Hitler.
Rodan wrote:
There, fixed that for ya!
@ Rodan:
Not a Romney or Newton fan so you might have debate your self.
@ Speranza:
Holder is a Black Power/3rld World Liberation ideologue. That man should not be AG.
Rodan wrote:
Hitler and Stalin admired each other. Mussolini was completely delusional -- thought he was another Caesar.
Rodan wrote:
Yes and his boss should not be president.
@ Speranza:
Yes he wanted to recreate the Roman Empire and Vassalize Latin America. His army couldn’t even beat the Greeks. The Greek Army actually held 1/3 of Albanian before the Nazis jumped in. This delayed Barbarossa.
@ Rodan:
His army couldn’t even beat the French. Italy has some good gunmakers, but their army has never measured up to modern standards. Well, not since they stopped being called Rome…
@ Iron Fist:
Even in the Roman Empire, Italians were not the best Legions. The best Legionaries were Spaniards, German Mercenaries, Greeks and Dalmatians.
Italians have made great military commanders. In the Spanish Empire, The Duke of Parma was Italian and under him, the Spanish never lost a battle. Interesting though, Italian units in the Spanish Army were actually pretty good. Sicilains were as good as the Spanish and Neapolitan and Lombards were decent.
But Italisns fighting for Italy, not good at all.
New thread.
[...] reminder from The Blogmocracy about the significance of today's date, four years ago: January 3rd [...]