Obama is doing some terrific Bush bashing right now

[IDemo]

Leaving no question whose policies brought us to this cliffside.

:fistbump: :headbang:

[burythehatchet]

1. and gives Clinton a pass

[Median Democrat]

2. Suggesting That Arthur Levitt Was The Same As Chris Cox?

There is a lot of difference between Dubya and Clinton, and if I were to assign blame, I would give only 5% at most of the blame to Clinton, and 95% to Dubya. For example, look at who ran the SEC. There is a world of difference between Chris Cox and Arthur Levitt.

[Enthusiast]

28. The SEC excused W. Bush's

behavior when his 'daddy' was president. Good ol' SEC boys. :rofl:

[Gman]

3. Clinton was elected 17 years ago

his policies have minimal, if any influence on what has transpired the last 8 years.

[Donnachaidh]

9. minimal? One word -- NAFTA. n/t

[depakid]

24. That was sarcasm, right?

[Idealism]

5. What did Clinton do to exacerbate this? n/t

[burythehatchet]

13. The Matrix in which you exist tells you that this is about Republicans and Democrats

The reality it something different and until you realize it you are simply part of the problem.

[Idealism]

19. Of course there is mutual blame to go around

But what did Clinton do exactly?

[burythehatchet]

22. He liberalized the acounting rules for financial inst., he allowed investment banks and

insurance companies to merge, he passed NAFTA which has killed our jobs base, and he now belongs to he ultra-class of world citizen who feign ignorance and shun blame. You MUST understand that neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are two sides of the same coin. All you need in the way of proof is to look at the actors in the financial world right now. They are all the same people who brought us here. Why do you suppose We The People don;t go in to the banks right now and take them over so they stop hemorrhaging money and stop screwing us.

THEY KEEP POWER BY CONVINCING US ITS DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICAN. Its not. But most people think it is and that's why it works (up to a tipping point and we're here) :).

[Idealism]

31. I don't find much blame on Clinton for this

There is some, but ultimately he wasn't in control. He went along with the ride for repealing Glass-Steagall and for enacting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, supporting it only when it became clear it was coming through Congress with overwhelming support.

If you look back at these two laws implemented in 1998 and 1999, both were "veto-proof" pieces of legislation that Clinton had no choice but to sign. There was nothing he could have done, and it would have been very very unpopular for him to try to side against the bi-partisan Congress that just passed the bill with an 88% approval.

NAFTA of course was grotesque, but ultimately, it would have been passed by Bush anyways with his GOP-controlled Congress at the start of his presidency. Businesses lobbied hard to get NAFTA implemented, to start the caravan of outsourcing, because it is in big businesses best self-interest to cut costs and boost profits- which outsourcing simultaneously does. It doesn't matter if Clinton implemented it or not, it would have happened regardless.

Neo-liberalism and neo-conservatives are not the same thing. Neo-liberalism has been around since the 1800s, whereas neo-conservatives is a newer phenomenon. Neo-conservatives borrows certain economic viewpoints from Neo-liberalism but they are not the same.

[burythehatchet]

36. We can agree to disagree. Democratic presidents have an obligation, IMO

to change the course of bad policy not go along with it because of a vote count.

[Idealism]

38. We are all guilty in this, some more than others. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

39. Read his remarks when he signed

the legislation. He was happy to do it. There is blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.

[Idealism]

43. Of course there is blame to go around

After all, it did pass with 88% of Congress voting "Yes." The fact is Clinton could not have done anything but sign the documents. It is veto-proof once over 75% of Congress vote "Yes" to a law. Clinton, seeing how much support the laws received from Congress (and lobbyists), gladly signed to take credit for the moment.

I am not absolving Clinton in any way, but the Time list has him at 14, with Bush 43 at 15, which is absurd. Clinton should be in the early 20s and Bush should be arguably be in the 1-3 range.

[havocmom]

47. ah-YUP

:thumbsup:

[polmaven]

45. He exists!

:shrug:

[acmavm]

48. No investigations into Bush I, NAFTA/CAFTA, deregulation.

It's like Monica Lewinski. People claim he never had 'sex' with the woman (being cutesy like he was).

The same people like to claim that he was the American worker's best friend.

[Idealism]

49. See post #31

[jtrockville]

6. Bush had 8 years to "right" any real or perceived Clinton "wrongs".

The GOP had majority control of both the house and senate for 6 of those 8 years. If Bush felt Clinton's policies had set us on a path to disaster he was obliged to correct them, no?

[Kahuna]

10. Right. It's disengenuous for folk to blame Clinton for legislation he

passed while in office for what transpired under bush. It was up to bush to recognize the changing landscape and make adjustments accordingly. There was no oversight or interest in oversight whatsoever under dumbya. How was Clinton to know that congress would completely abandon their oversight responsibility?

[burythehatchet]

14. That's one logical of looking at it. n/t

[polmaven]

18. But I thought President Clinton

was to blame for the "big bang"! If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be in this mess, would we? :shrug:

[burythehatchet]

25. policies have consequences. (There, I just wasted nine words)

[polmaven]

44. As does vitriol.

(only six words)

[depakid]

30. No, actually it isn't because pandering to the right and enabling their policies continues

When the Administration and the congressional Dems decide to stop going along to get along with the people who actions and policies caused this mess- and start taking up the mantle of those who opposed those policies (and warned in no uncertain terms what would result if they were enavted and followed) then maybe one can make the claim that it's disengenuous (and that the Democrats have finally learned).

And btw: quite a number of congressional Dems were going right along with Bush and the Republicans well into the 2000's -including at times, the erstwhile majority "leader."

[Median Democrat]

16. Stop! That Is Way Too Much Logic For Political Discourse!

:)

[burythehatchet]

23. that's one of the funniest posts I ever read. But I don't think you meant it to be.

[Renew Deal]

29. Bury the hatchet

[old mark]

34. ...up to the fucking handle.......nt

[burythehatchet]

37. .

;)

:toast:

[Captain Hilts]

4. Good on him!

[jtrockville]

7. Any links to the video?

[IDemo]

8. I don't have, no. It was live on CNN.

I'll post one when I can find it, which shouldn't take too long. :hi:

[jtrockville]

11. Is this it? (CSPAN link)

http://c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-R-15689

[IDemo]

15. Yes, that's it.

Beginning at 24:50, "For too long in Washington, our budget process has been an exercise in deception, a series of accounting tricks ... budgeting zero dollars for the Iraq War"

[jtrockville]

21. Yes, yes, that was excellent.

Thanks for posting the topic.

[madokie]

35. Thanks jt

[dysfunctional press]

12. i'd rather see him doing some terrific steps to get us healthcare and a better economy...

so far, i'm not all that impressed.

[bdamomma]

17. he would be if he did not inherit this crisis from the republicans.

[dysfunctional press]

42. his answers seem to be more pro-corporate than one might have hoped.

:shrug:

[IDemo]

20. Headline: Health care next on agenda for Obama, Congress

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6274160.html

[dysfunctional press]

41. if his answer involves the insurance companies...or mandates...it's the wrong answer.

we'll see.

[WI_DEM]

26. Seems to be doing a great job so far

got a big stimulus bill, signed bill to extend health care to four million kids. He's working on health care now. I guess he can't change everything in just a month.

[dysfunctional press]

40. i don't like the directions he's been heading with things.

it's a pro-corporate rush to the center.

if we end up with anything less than single-payer universal healthcare, it will be an abject failure.

as far as extending health care to kids- blago did exactly that in illinois- and look where he is now.

[bdamomma]

46. he can't change 8 years of crap and the gutting of the government

in one month that is for sure.

[madokie]

27. I wish I'd a seen it

Damn I like listening to the President. What a contrast to early on with the bushco cabal when I couldn't turn the damn teevee off fast enough or turn the page quick enough. Today we have a good honest and smart President who needs all the support we can muster up for him. President Obama you can count me in the ones who have your back.

[IDemo]

32. See post #11 for the link n/t

[madokie]

33. cool