B I O B....blame it on Bush...
- Thread starter diesel96
- Start date
diesel96
Well-Known Member
I'm just pointing out that blaming a previous administration is nothing new, but often there are limitations as to how long into one's presidency it can be done. Something that apparently Republicans ignored during Bush administration, as they blamed Clinton over and over again. For close to EIGHT years. Yet, as the clips showed, numerous GOP members were outraged that the Obama administration would blame Bush.
Don't mind me, just bringing the hypocrisy full circle, most pundants on the right blamed Clinton for 9/11 to the policies for the oil spills, prompting me to ask,
"while blaming Bush is now off-limits, Clinton is still fair game"...
Don't mind me, just bringing the hypocrisy full circle, most pundants on the right blamed Clinton for 9/11 to the policies for the oil spills, prompting me to ask,
"while blaming Bush is now off-limits, Clinton is still fair game"...
tieguy
Banned
I've never heard anyone blame Clinton for Bush's 8 years of presidency. The problem I would have with that concept is we would then have to give Clinton credit for Bush's many successes.
I think there was a reed/ pelosi / Obama congress that does not get enough blame for the economic collapse.
I think there was a reed/ pelosi / Obama congress that does not get enough blame for the economic collapse.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
(SF Gate) — It turns out that San Francisco’s eco-conscious Mayor Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, own a piece of the deepwater rig at the center of the gulf oil disaster.
According to the mayor’s most recently filed economic disclosure statement, last year the couple invested between $10,000 and $100,000 in Transocean Inc. – the company whose ruptured deepwater rig, which is leased to BP, is spewing millions of gallons of oil, endangering wildlife and beaches all along the Gulf Coast.
Just last month, Newsom told the San Diego area East County Magazine that “the environmental catastrophe devastating the Gulf of Mexico is a tragic reminder of why we must take a stand against the oil companies and oppose all offshore drilling off California’s precious coast.”
The Jennifer Lynn Siebel Trust also listed a half dozen other $10,000-to-$100,000 energy-related investments, including stock held last year in three companies involved in oil and gas exploration: Dorchester Minerals, Resolute Energy and Schlumberger Ltd.
The portfolio also includes stock in Petroleo Brasileiro, Brazil’s largely state-owned oil company that has been looking to the United States to help finance exploration of a huge offshore oil discovery near Rio de Janeiro.
In all, the couple’s 2009 trust portfolio listed 43 investments that, in addition to energy, included some of the biggest players in finance, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications and health care. The trust produced more than $100,000 in income last year for the couple, according to the report.
....................................................................................................................
According to the mayor’s most recently filed economic disclosure statement, last year the couple invested between $10,000 and $100,000 in Transocean Inc. – the company whose ruptured deepwater rig, which is leased to BP, is spewing millions of gallons of oil, endangering wildlife and beaches all along the Gulf Coast.
Just last month, Newsom told the San Diego area East County Magazine that “the environmental catastrophe devastating the Gulf of Mexico is a tragic reminder of why we must take a stand against the oil companies and oppose all offshore drilling off California’s precious coast.”
The Jennifer Lynn Siebel Trust also listed a half dozen other $10,000-to-$100,000 energy-related investments, including stock held last year in three companies involved in oil and gas exploration: Dorchester Minerals, Resolute Energy and Schlumberger Ltd.
The portfolio also includes stock in Petroleo Brasileiro, Brazil’s largely state-owned oil company that has been looking to the United States to help finance exploration of a huge offshore oil discovery near Rio de Janeiro.
In all, the couple’s 2009 trust portfolio listed 43 investments that, in addition to energy, included some of the biggest players in finance, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications and health care. The trust produced more than $100,000 in income last year for the couple, according to the report.
....................................................................................................................
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Dennis Miller REALLY ?
you obvisously didn't watch the video link. How many more examples do you need...
http://www.gazette.com/articles/many-99888-coast-miami.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/22/judge-moratorium-energy-portfolio/
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/23/judge-who-blocked-drilling-moratorium-has-oil-investments/
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/judge-who-nixed-oil-ban-owns-oil-stock
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
The problem comes when these holdings affect the way you govern.
tieguy
Banned
I'm sorry all i saw was jon stewart . was there a conservative later who blamed clinton for something?
island1fox
Well-Known Member
Go figure !!! Obama still claims the Bush Tax cuts and the two wars caused the economic meltdown.The first two years the Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency. What did they do ??? Change the tax policy of Bush or end the two wars ??
No --we are now in three wars the Bush Tax Policy is still in place and Obama wants you to believe it is "Bush" ?????????? Obama is an empty suit ---no plan--no leadership skills --just blame the past !!
Island,
lets look at the facts and not the hysteria, shall we?
Reagan cut the top 1% tax bracket 25% in order to create jobs. (FACT) When Reagan took office, Carter had an unemployment record of 1977-7.1% / 1978-6.1% / 1979-5.8% / 1980-7.1%, so the theory was to CUT taxes for the richest people in the country in order to create jobs. Ok, the trickle down theory was born.
But what happened in reality? Reagan after 1 year in office = 8.4%, Reagan after 2 years in office = 10.7%, Reagan after 3 years in office = 8.2%, Reagan after 4 years in office = 7.8%, Reagan after 5 years in office = 7.5%, Reagan after 6 years in office = 6.9%, Reagan after 7 years in office = 6.1%, Reagan in his final year = 5.8%.
Whats the difference between Jimmy Carters best unemployment record and Reagan with tax cuts??? ANSWER: nothing. Carters best was 5.8% the same as Reagan.
Following Reagan, BUSH 1 took that 5.8% in 4 years to 7.8%.
Combining both Reagan and Bush1 and you get WORSE than Carter.
Clinton RAISED taxes back to pre Reagan levels and in 8 years, reduced unemployment to 4% when he left office.!
BUSH2 cut those taxes back to Reagans level and unemployment went from 4% to 7.8 in 8 years mimicking the REAGAN/BUSH record.
Now Obama with his stimulus programs and bailouts of wall street and banks and auto companies took that 7.8 and rose to 10.2% in his second year, the unemployment began to stabilize and lower to 8.7% until the BUSH tax cuts were extended, and BLAM!
JUST LIKE THAT, unemployment rises again to 9.1%.
TAX CUTS for the rich just dont create jobs, thats a proven fact. It may be the rhetoric that the right wing uses to sell its followers who dont bother to reflect on the historical record, but its just not true.
Since the republicans took control of the house, gasoline has spiked and gone over 4 bucks a gallon, unemployment has risen and the stock market crashed.
What is it about republican leadershp has you convinced that they are the best ones to run the country given the historical record?
Peace.
lets look at the facts and not the hysteria, shall we?
Reagan cut the top 1% tax bracket 25% in order to create jobs. (FACT) When Reagan took office, Carter had an unemployment record of 1977-7.1% / 1978-6.1% / 1979-5.8% / 1980-7.1%, so the theory was to CUT taxes for the richest people in the country in order to create jobs. Ok, the trickle down theory was born.
But what happened in reality? Reagan after 1 year in office = 8.4%, Reagan after 2 years in office = 10.7%, Reagan after 3 years in office = 8.2%, Reagan after 4 years in office = 7.8%, Reagan after 5 years in office = 7.5%, Reagan after 6 years in office = 6.9%, Reagan after 7 years in office = 6.1%, Reagan in his final year = 5.8%.
Whats the difference between Jimmy Carters best unemployment record and Reagan with tax cuts??? ANSWER: nothing. Carters best was 5.8% the same as Reagan.
Following Reagan, BUSH 1 took that 5.8% in 4 years to 7.8%.
Combining both Reagan and Bush1 and you get WORSE than Carter.
Clinton RAISED taxes back to pre Reagan levels and in 8 years, reduced unemployment to 4% when he left office.!
BUSH2 cut those taxes back to Reagans level and unemployment went from 4% to 7.8 in 8 years mimicking the REAGAN/BUSH record.
Now Obama with his stimulus programs and bailouts of wall street and banks and auto companies took that 7.8 and rose to 10.2% in his second year, the unemployment began to stabilize and lower to 8.7% until the BUSH tax cuts were extended, and BLAM!
JUST LIKE THAT, unemployment rises again to 9.1%.
TAX CUTS for the rich just dont create jobs, thats a proven fact. It may be the rhetoric that the right wing uses to sell its followers who dont bother to reflect on the historical record, but its just not true.
Since the republicans took control of the house, gasoline has spiked and gone over 4 bucks a gallon, unemployment has risen and the stock market crashed.
What is it about republican leadershp has you convinced that they are the best ones to run the country given the historical record?
Peace.
Similar threads
