However, the Democrats justify their remarks by saying that they wanted Bushitler to fail to save America..whereas Rush and other Republicans want Obama to fail so that Americans will suffer.

Morons.

It is not a matter of “if”, it will fail.
You can’t tax and spend your way out of a recession…you can only work and manufacture your way out.
The only way you put people back to work, so they can buy goods, is to allow business to thrive.
No body out of a job, hires people to work…and no bankrupt company hires people…so far the only area growing is the federal budgetgovernment.

right2bright on March 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM

FIFY

And please, everybody, try to act surprised when they admit that this was their goal all along, it will make the edits for the cameras much easier on the propaganda machine.

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

First off, it isn’t a depression (yet) that will only come if the filthy liar in the White House continues to ignore the situtation as he has to this point.

The filthy liar could have come into office and said stuff that would reassure the market. Instead, he bankrupted future generations, punished success, and talked the market down. He gets no honeymoon when he is so clearly unfit for office and the challenges of being the leader. The bastard couldn’t even manage a ceremonial state visit without f**king it up so badly one of our biggest allies is insulted.

How long did you all wait when Bush took office?

Fed45 on March 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Actuakky, they didn’t even wait until he had been inaugurated.

On January 10, 2001, a group of newspapers, all but one of which had endorsed Bush’s opponent, announced in essence that they didn’t believe Bush won the vote in Florida. They formed a consortium to count the ballots themselves, and were happily joined by the Bush-hating al-AP and CLinton News Network. Here’s their press release.

http://www2.norc.org/fl/press.asp

Even before the release of their research, which concluded that Gore would still have lost Florida, the WaPo and NY Fishwrap were accused by the tolerant Left of “suprressing” the results:

excerpt

the Times and its counterparts in the consortium have decided to conceal from the American people facts damaging to the Bush administration’s claims to political legitimacy. They are doing so for the express purpose of suppressing dissent and bolstering the president as he prepares to take the American people into war and makes sweeping attacks on their civil liberties.

Of course, the real reason the report release was delayed was because of another thing in the news at the time-namely the mass-murder of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians in New York, Virginia and Pennyslvania.

Nevermind that this was 6 years, and not 7 weeks, into Bush’s disastrous term.LOL.
Constant Parrhesia on March 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM

And not coincidentally the Democrats took control of Congress 6 years into Bush’s presidency. So what’s your point?

So, what GHW Bush recession are you referring to? And please be specific with actual numbers/data.

Fed45 on March 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM

buyavowel is referring to the Bush 1 recession that the Fed said ended in March of 1991, 18 months before the media conned less than 50% of America into voting for the guy from Arkansas.

From the NY Fishwrap, February 2000:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E2D9163EF934A35751C0A9669C8B63&scp=3&sq=editorial+1991+economic+recovery+&st=nyt

I changed one word that the NYT “editors” got wrong:

Though unrecognized unreported at the time, the current recovery began in March 1991, long before Bill Clinton defeated President George Bush on the assertion that he did not know how to manage the economy.

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

And what are you going to say after 100 days and the economy hasn’t significantly improved. Wait for 150 days? After that wait for 200 days? I think you will be saying exactly the same after Obamas 4 year term is over. i.e. it’s all Bushs fault and Obama needs another term to fix it.

Liberals have no sense of accountability never taking responsibility for their actions never admitting when they are wrong.

Can you at least wait one hundred days before blaming the President for the bush depression?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Ummmm..thinking…thinking….um….NO!

How long did you all wait when Bush took office?

If you stop with the doom and gloom the market will go up.

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM

No, if people have an idea that people are in charge who know what the hell they’re doing, the markets will go up.

Bush 1 recession 3300

Bush 2 depression ?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM

God! The really let you off the short bus and out of the home to access the internet? How’d you sneak past Nurse Rachett?

What is your point in quote the GHW Bush Dow number in isolation? You can’t possibly have one. Here, let me help you:

In the Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon/Ford/Carter years the Dow grew a measly 40%. That’s 40% in a 20 year span. From about 600 points in 1960, to a measly 850 in 1980.

At Reagan’s inauguration in 1981 the Dow sat at 950. In just 4 years it grew 26% to 1200. (I know reading comprehension is difficult for you, so let me help: 20% growth in 20 years, vs. 26% growth in FOUR years. But wait! Reagan’s not done yet. It grew 83% in another 4 years. When GHW Bush was inagurated, the Dow was at 2200.

You are correct that when Bush handed the reighs over to Clinton the Dow as at 3330. But–and stick with me here, because I know math is hard—but in the 4 years GHW Bush was in office the Dow grew by 50%.

So, what GHW Bush recession are you referring to? And please be specific with actual numbers/data.

But, let’s not stop there. Clinton had 4 years of 96% Dow growth, followed by 4 years of 70% growth.

Now, I’m sure this will make you want to throw up, but in Bush’s first 4 years (remember, 9/11 happened during that time), the Dow grew by 70%. Now, in the interest of accuracy, there was a 21% decline in the Dow performance during Bush’s second term. But, let’s keep in mind, that’s over a 4 year period.

But of course Barry is not about to be outdone by Bush, so what does he do? From election day to today Barry’s Dow has had an unprecedented drop for any new President of 28%!!! Hell, Bush couldn’t even do that in FOUR years, despite trying, according to you.

Now, there are about 20,000 other things to use to measure the performance of the economy, but you were the one fixated on the DJIA, so I used that as a basis for the argument.

So, what was your point about GWH Bush and the Dow being at 3300 when he left office? I’m not getting it.

I will never, ever understand why half of the country wants America to lose in any war. In my book they are traitors, regardless of what the polls say. Seriously Conservatives/Republicans must get their act together and save America before the Dems destroy it with their insanity.