Bluegrassrivals

ARTICLE EXCERPT---
President Barack Obama now says predecessor George W. Bush and his administration were responsible for the 2011 withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, according to The Washington Times.

Despite couching the "full removal of U.S. forces from Iraq" as the White House’s having made good on a 2008 Obama promise to do just that — it was a key talking point in his campaign speeches — the president is now back-stepping, according to the Times.

"Now, however, with the terrorist force the Islamic State running roughshod through Iraq, capturing key territory, slaughtering Christians and promising to 'raise the flag of Allah at the White House,' Mr. Obama has begun to adjust the narrative," Ben Wolfgang of the Times wrote.

Read http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-I...z3ADApEsPq


Unbelievable.

In 2050 the dems will be blaming Bush. It has sadly become there go to in a world where they've had the opportunity to turn what should be there number one priority (the economy) around but have failed to do so for middle class families in this country.

Wait for the quick response of "It will take us until 2050 to get us out of the mess Bush put us in".

So many blame Bush and wonder why he went to war with this no name country and what his reasons were, but it makes me think. What would the ENTIRE country have said if 3 days after 9/11 he just said, Im not doing anything about this?
99% of this country was pro Bush in the days after 9/11 and wanted blood, so calling Bush out for going there is being highly hypocritical.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:In 2050 the dems will be blaming Bush. It has sadly become there go to in a world where they've had the opportunity to turn what should be there number one priority (the economy) around but have failed to do so for middle class families in this country.

Wait for the quick response of "It will take us until 2050 to get us out of the mess Bush put us in".

So many blame Bush and wonder why he went to war with this no name country and what his reasons were, but it makes me think. What would the ENTIRE country have said if 3 days after 9/11 he just said, Im not doing anything about this?
99% of this country was pro Bush in the days after 9/11 and wanted blood, so calling Bush out for going there is being highly hypocritical.

Record stock market numbers, deficit cut in half, 10 million jobs, 63 straight months of job growth, the last 6 months of which were over 200k(not happened since 1997), 6.1% unemployment. The economy is getting a lot stronger.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:In 2050 the dems will be blaming Bush. It has sadly become there go to in a world where they've had the opportunity to turn what should be there number one priority (the economy) around but have failed to do so for middle class families in this country.

Wait for the quick response of "It will take us until 2050 to get us out of the mess Bush put us in".

So many blame Bush and wonder why he went to war with this no name country and what his reasons were, but it makes me think. What would the ENTIRE country have said if 3 days after 9/11 he just said, Im not doing anything about this?
99% of this country was pro Bush in the days after 9/11 and wanted blood, so calling Bush out for going there is being highly hypocritical.

Remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq was a war based on lies of the 2 war criminals at the top of the heap. It had an evil man running the country, but at least he had control of Iraq. America kind of has a moral obligation to help some in Iraq, we put their country in turmoil.

TheRealVille Wrote:Record stock market numbers, deficit cut in half, 10 million jobs, 63 straight months of job growth, the last 6 months of which were over 200k(not happened since 1997), 6.1% unemployment. The economy is getting a lot stronger.

1. Do the stock market numbers have anything to do with Obama's policies?
2. How much has the national debt grown under Obama?
3. How much has the food stamp rolls grown under Obama?
4. How much has the number of people on "disability" grown under Obama?
5. How many of those jobs are part time?
6. How much of that reduction in unemployment resulted from people dropping out of the job market?
7. How is the economy "getting a lot stronger"?

I guess that your next post will tell us that we are stronger internationally because of the "tough" stance of Obama. It is rather hard to be tough when you wear girly jeans and look and act like a pansy.

TheRealVille Wrote:Record stock market numbers, deficit cut in half, 10 million jobs, 63 straight months of job growth, the last 6 months of which were over 200k(not happened since 1997), 6.1% unemployment. The economy is getting a lot stronger.

Cooked data, the liberal's modus-operandi.

1) Record stock market numbers. I got two words for you on that; quantitative easing. Now, if you want to go with an old common sense axiom to understand what that does to the market, you might consider the sad story of the farmer who ate his own seed. That was fine for the 'live for today crowd', but it didn't work out so well when it came time to plant his crops. Or for those who suffer an even shorter attention span, "Chicken today, feathers tomorrow."

2) Deficit cut in half. An absurd compartmentalization in the broader nightmare landscape of today's economic landscape. When mercifully, Mr Obama finally hands the "keys to the bus" back over to the "people," which he said was in the ditch when he climbed into the driver seat back in 2008, said bus will look like the runner up in a demolition derby. His criticism of George W was nothing short of slanderous for adding in present day retrospection, a mere 4 trillion to the national debt. And yet Mr Obama by all accounts, will have added at least 10 trillion to our national debt "all by his lonesome" and that is something to cheer about if one listens to the spin.

3) The economy is getting a lot stronger. The Obama economy has only just managed to recover the jobs lost at the outset of his tenure. And I know that liberals will blame Bush for those even though I've posted proof of the following on a number of occasions, "The Great Recession (of 2009) affected the entire world economy," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession But, it's really hard to politicize that so liberals sort of don't ever go there, LOL.

The argument is again the stuff of insanity. No matter how many cul-de-sacs we get jammed into, or how bad the driver of the bus screws up, and no matter how gory the trail of carnage, economic and social, that lay strewn in the wake of the buses' so called progress. The laurel leaves all go to Obama and the blame, though now over a half decade down the road, goes and will continue to go to Bush. Hence, the theme of this thread. Oblame-a was elected in 2008, here we are in 2014 and he's blaming Bush for the Iraq troop pull out of 2011, even though we have literally hundreds of video taped occasions of his bragging about ending the war and bringing home the troops.

BTW, it all sort of reminds me of the historical account of Nero, Emperor of Rome. Who supposedly fiddled when Rome burned. Iraq now burns, and Caesar is in Martha's Vineyard vacating.

TheRealVille Wrote:Record stock market numbers, deficit cut in half, 10 million jobs, 63 straight months of job growth, the last 6 months of which were over 200k(not happened since 1997), 6.1% unemployment. The economy is getting a lot stronger.

Your turning a blind eye to the real problem's. How is that federal deficit coming along? How does record stock number prices affect middle class families who don't have the money to invest? The Dems are the 1%.

I bought some of the Bush blame early on however that excuse can't work today. I have always respected people that own their mistakes. Our country would be much better off if people in all parties stopped pointing the finger and stopped passing the buck. It would have been easy for Lincoln to blame Buchanan for the mess that preempted the Civil War and give up. It would have been easy for FDR to blame Hoover for the Great Depression and give up. The key? They decided to fix the problem the best they could. Did they make the best long-term decisions? Who knows? But at least they acted.

LWC Wrote:I bought some of the Bush blame early on however that excuse can't work today. I have always respected people that own their mistakes. Our country would be much better off if people in all parties stopped pointing the finger and stopped passing the buck. It would have been easy for Lincoln to blame Buchanan for the mess that preempted the Civil War and give up. It would have been easy for FDR to blame Hoover for the Great Depression and give up. The key? They decided to fix the problem the best they could. Did they make the best long-term decisions? Who knows? But at least they acted.

He there LWC.

And, as you mention, Bush does own some of the blame. His father went in there with General Norman Schwarzkopf and lambasted them like the red headed step childs they were. But, everybody underestimated the suicidal mania that drives the Islamic extremist. Like Ahab, they would gladly shoot their own hearts at the heathen infidels of the west. So, all that show of force just steeled their determination to withstand our superiority, which was and still is like comparing bows and arrows to a mini-gun.

So George Jr and Sr, were wrong in their basic assumption. The shock and awe that should have given them their attitude adjustment, went almost nowhere and revealed that the true scope of the job was to be much more labor and treasure intensive. But, we all learned that truth at the same time, nobody could have anticipated the ultimate Arab reaction. But, once we saw that light, we should have stayed the course, and not wussed out. To me, our main failing was in trying to be too humane. We needed a status of forces agreement with Iraq. This was no time for foreign policy changes that basically ceded US sovereignty. The red flag that the more sage within government circles threw up when America looked poised to elect a novice to the White House in 2007, was well founded. We see that the comedy of errors, characterized by lapses in judgment and unrealistic expectations born of flawed foreign policy initiatives, has basically managed to set the world on fire. The smoke of which first began to ascend during our ill advised support for the so-called Arab Spring.

Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:1. Do the stock market numbers have anything to do with Obama's policies?
2. How much has the national debt grown under Obama?
3. How much has the food stamp rolls grown under Obama?
4. How much has the number of people on "disability" grown under Obama?
5. How many of those jobs are part time?
6. How much of that reduction in unemployment resulted from people dropping out of the job market?
7. How is the economy "getting a lot stronger"?

I guess that your next post will tell us that we are stronger internationally because of the "tough" stance of Obama. It is rather hard to be tough when you wear girly jeans and look and act like a pansy.

Paying for Bush's wars, and Bush's job loss numbers.

Been addressed already, with numbers I provided.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Your turning a blind eye to the real problem's. How is that federal deficit coming along? How does record stock number prices affect middle class families who don't have the money to invest? The Dems are the 1%.

Ask the 10 million that now have jobs. We are paying our way out of a hell of a mess that Bush drove us into. My money that I personally have invested in the market made a pretty good return last year. It takes time to recover from as much damage as he did.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Your turning a blind eye to the real problem's. How is that federal deficit coming along? How does record stock number prices affect middle class families who don't have the money to invest? The Dems are the 1%.

This statement shows your ignorance of the subject. Ask just about any American that has any type of retirement investment, including 401k's, what the stock market means to their middle class retirement money. All retirement plans, and 401ks depend on stock market investments. Do you have a retirement plan through your employer? It is driven by the stock market. Do you have an annuity, or 401k? Stock market driven.

TheRealVille Wrote:This statement shows your ignorance of the subject. Ask just about any American that has any type of retirement investment, including 401k's, what the stock market means to their middle class retirement money. All retirement plans, and 401ks depend on stock market investments. Do you have a retirement plan through your employer? It is driven by the stock market. Do you have an annuity, or 401k? Stock market driven.

Yea, because your last three post do nothing but blame Bush. Just as I said in another post, wait for it, and there it will be. Please be original, thank of something instead of what your spoon fed at breakfast by your liberal masters pulling the strings on your puppet arms.

As for the 401K, I would hope every working American would be smart enough to and understand how it works, but its not going to make a difference when it goes right back down. My father lost 119,000 of his 401K since 2008. What does that say about the run of this administration? You 1%ers are killing me.
My retirement is fine. I contribute 15% of my check weekly in a T Rowe Price fund. Its not going to matter though, by the time my target date of 2045 comes along, it wont be enough and ill have to work until I die, unless we elect someone with enough sense to run a country. Good luck with that one.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Yea, because your last three post do nothing but blame Bush. Just as I said in another post, wait for it, and there it will be. Please be original, thank of something instead of what your spoon fed at breakfast by your liberal masters pulling the strings on your puppet arms.

As for the 401K, I would hope every working American would be smart enough to and understand how it works, but its not going to make a difference when it goes right back down. My father lost 119,000 of his 401K since 2008. What does that say about the run of this administration? You 1%ers are killing me.
My retirement is fine. I contribute 15% of my check weekly in a T Rowe Price fund. Its not going to matter though, by the time my target date of 2045 comes along, it wont be enough and ill have to work until I die, unless we elect someone with enough sense to run a country. Good luck with that one.

The fed is keeping the market inflated with freshly printed money. Kind of like an air pump that can keep an inner tube inflated even though it has a big hole in it. The market used to stand on it's own due to the natural workings of the free enterprise system on which it is based. The Ronald Reagan era chief economist Art Laffer's model of the 1980's was the last time the free enterprise system was allowed to work. Keynesian economics on the other hand, is based on governmental manipulation of the market, ergo the term quantitative easing. The point is, as you pointed out, that inner tube and the market will go right back down just as soon as the pump is disconnected.

That's the exact reason why the job picture counter acts with the growing market. People keep trading and investing because Bernanke has been propping the market up, ala the classic Keynesian model of governmental manipulation. Believe me, the Wall Street elite wake up every day wondering if that will be the day of the next great market adjustment. They hang on every word the fed issues.

Hence, we have a Workforce Participation Rate stalled at 62.8% which, is the lowest in the 3 1/2 decades since 1978, during the miserable days of the Jimmy Carter Presidency. If one were to take today's manipulative machinations of the federal reserve out of the equation, we would all understand the term coined in that era and which became the hallmark of the sluggish and depressed Jimmy Carter economy. 'The Misery Index.'
EXCERPT---
Reviving the Misery Index

"Graybeards will remember Jimmy Carter’s embrace of the “Misery Index”—the combination of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate—that Peanut Brain used against Gerald Ford in 1976, but which he then doubled during his forlorn presidency as Ronald Reagan skillfully reminded everyone in 1980. Well, it’s baaaack.

Only this time in a much more refined and useable way, as economist Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University explains in a terrific column in the Indonesia-based Globe Asia magazine. (The Cato Institute, where Hanke is a fellow, has cross-posted a full version of the article.) Here’s a few excerpts, though the real action can be seen in some of the charts and tables Hanke and Globe Asia have put together:"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...-index.php

There are black clouds on the horizon portending the day when pensions and 401K's might collapse, and they are more than ominous. Some think there is an adjustment coming that will end American opulence in the world economic arena. At any rate, the dreams and life styles of those upon whose backs this nation was built, will certainly be dashed. Art Laffer is still lurking about, ready and able to assist but then, liberals would see this nation laying on history's ash heap long before they would submit themselves to him, even though history proves he bats a thousand, and they have yet to get to 1st.

^
Hyper Inflation will be the death of this country. Especially when the work force scales dip lower than that of the takers.

TheRealVille Wrote:Remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq was a war based on lies of the 2 war criminals at the top of the heap. It had an evil man running the country, but at least he had control of Iraq. America kind of has a moral obligation to help some in Iraq, we put their country in turmoil.

Usually I'm a little reluctant to quote you as I would rather not repost your DNC infused anti-American rhetoric. However, this time your last sentence did contain a shred of truth. But, first things first.

1) "Iraq had nothing to do with 911."

Knowledge they say is power, US foreign policy is a complex application of knowledge and military strength based of the world's perception of our land. For example, the Cold War culminated and ultimately ended as the result of effective foreign policy. Russia was at the time a formidable enemy of the United States. They shouldn't have been because we had just helped them defeat their German arch enemies in WW2. None the less and contrary to all La-La's misplaced trust in their fellow man, we were enemies.

As with all enemies, the only thing Russia respected was force. Hence, our nuclear arsenal was and is referred to as a "deterrent." It makes people think long and hard before they jump up on us. Russia had proven during the days of JFK's administration that they were a force not to be trifled with and, I know you are familiar with the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Long story made short is that we did in fact back down a very bad man in the person of Nikita Khrushchev. If we had not done so, the US and the world would be a very different place right now.

At any rate, effective foreign policy prosecuted by knowledgeable and courageous senior statesmen of the day saved the world from chaos. Contrast that picture with what we have going on today. Our President cannot say often enough that we will crawfish rather than fight if we are confronted off our own shores. George Bush took the fight to the world of Arab extremists and rightfully so. Terrorists had just murdered 3,000 innocent US citizens and done as it turned out, 3 trillion dollars worth of damage to our land and our economy. And for the record, the savior of the Democrat Party (Bill Clinton) had just spent 8 long years proving to terrorists that the US wanted to play nicey nicey, and you see what that got us. Downsizing the US military, throttling the CIA and pulling back our military presence, brought us 911. Appeasement does not work, now, in the past or in the future. One takes the fight to his enemy or he is conquered. That in spite of the acid refluxesque default setting of the liberal who, no matter how hard or often is hit in the nose with the reality of the brutality of many of the much vaunted "Global Community," will continue to grovel at the feet of true war criminals.

Foreign policy isn't just running around the world with a fist full of dollars buying our friends ala, Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry at the direction of only one man, the Grand Pooba. How much money would you suppose Jack Kennedy would have needed to buy off Khrushchev? The idea is as ridiculous as hiding from the truth, which is the chosen path of the pacifist.

2) "Iraq was a war based on lies."

Well, I hate to tell you but, if it was, Nancy and Hillary were leading the charge as much as anybody. To keep the wolves at bay we must keep a presence in-theater. But, no we had to scram out of there to make Barack look good. Iraq was in turmoil during the war but, normalcy had been restored to a level that hadn't been seen since another pacifist liberal in the person of Jimmy Carter stood idly by, and watched the Shah be overthrown back in the 70's.

The plan was to stay there and effect foreign policy in-theater. Not to withdraw completely out of the region, thusly pouring gas on the fires of rebellion otherwise known as the Arab Spring. This is when stability in the region was cast to the wind, as our own state department supported the overthrow of one leader after the other. Heck, we're still doing the same thing as we speak, calling for the ouster of the leader of Iraq and trying to get rid of Syrian leadership. We did have a moral obligation in Iraq just as you say, and turning our back on that obligation has created one heck of a mess. Part of which according to analysts, is the unraveling of NATO and the rise of Putin.

Be aware:

http://www.truthandaction.org/eric-holde...errorists/