« Tony Blair: Bush a "true idealist" with "genuine integrity" | Main | Remedial History 101 For Idiots »

Proof: Democrats at Fault for the Recession

We've all heard the mantra before, repeatedly. George W. Bush almost single-handedly destroyed the economy with his "tax cuts for the rich" while letting the "poor get poorer." Now it appears that the evidence has fallen away from that argument.

Has anyone else noticed that almost from the first day the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 the economy was at first shaky and then collapsed. Well, there is a summary of what has happened and who is to blamed.

Under the Democrats, unemployment started to balloon. It stated to climb, rising past 4.5%, past 5%, past 6%, and past 6.5%, all the way to 8.5% by the time they had been in office for just two years. By then, President Obama had been inaugurated, and unemployment continued to rise as spending increased. This chart explains, in depth, the bills Democrats passed, and the effects they had from November 2006-March 2010 (click for a sharper, bigger image):

For the complete rundown of how the economy faltered and fell due to the policies of the Democrats (including more graphs) check out the main article.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39995.

Comments (39)

"Miss Me Yet?" ... (Below threshold)
914:

"Miss Me Yet?"

"Miss Me Yet?" Goo... (Below threshold)
warchild:

"Miss Me Yet?"

Good God no. The deficit had nothing to do with the collapse of the banking system. Not to mention the fact that a very large portion of that number is Iraq and Afghanistan spending, coupled with the Bush tax cuts in action.

For a much more nuanced and thoughtful article I suggest.

http://www.truth-out.org/032009R

Not that any here will likely read it.

TruthOut? Aren't they still... (Below threshold)

TruthOut? Aren't they still promising that the double-secret indictment of Karl Rove will be released Any Day Now?

J.

Oh baloney. Correlation is ... (Below threshold)

Oh baloney. Correlation is not causation.

Otherwise, is Bush responsible for the 2001 stock crash? After all it occurred right after he took office and the GOP regained the Senate.

I thought not.

Not to mention the fact ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Not to mention the fact that a very large portion of that number is Iraq and Afghanistan spending, coupled with the Bush tax cuts in action.

...as long as you ignore little things like "the deficit was decreasing, even with the Iraq war, until the Democrats took over Congress." The Bush tax cuts had been running for SIX YEARS, with decreasing deficits, until the Democrats stepped in and started screwing things up.

They spent more money on the big stimulus bill - in one shot - than the entire cost of the Iraq war from 2003 to date. Then there's all of the other crappy and borderline-stupid spending they've been rattling off while people were talking about the "big" spending bills.

They also put us on the hook for Obamacare - which is getting ready to make the stimulus PLUS the Iraq war look like pocket change by comparison.

Note to warchild and jim x:... (Below threshold)
epador:

Note to warchild and jim x:

"Ohh, look a shiney..."

That dog don't hunt.

Correlation is not causatio... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Correlation is not causation.

Never mind the HIGH DEGREE of correlation.

More Kool Aid, jim x?

No thanks Garandfan. You ca... (Below threshold)

No thanks Garandfan. You can keep your Koolaid. Looks like you're really into it.

If you'd like to put down the koolaid for a second, I'd love for you to tell me how the HIGH DEGREE of correlation matters if it makes Democrats look bad, but how it doesn't matter if it makes Republicans look bad.

Well?

Forget the hockey stick ana... (Below threshold)
914:

Forget the hockey stick analogie's. Using that chart, the way it is shaping up, the dumbokraut's are creating a tidal wave of unemployment.



Note to epador: looks like ... (Below threshold)

Note to epador: looks like a shiney on you.

P.s. - That dog does hunt.

Now, have any logical counter-argument?

" Using that chart, the way... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

" Using that chart, the way it is shaping up, the dumbokraut's are creating a tidal wave of unemployment."

That's not a bug, that's a feature. Kill the jobs, blame the rich, get them hooked on the government check, and they'll remember to vote properly to keep the money coming in.

Hey, do we have a new visit... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Hey, do we have a new visitor?

Warchild! Nice screen name. Hard to misspell.

I don't know about your statement that, "Not that any here will likely read it. " I'll bet Dane and Jim X have already dropped by. They're nuanced-guys.

Yeah, warchild - these guys... (Below threshold)

Yeah, warchild - these guys aren't much on reading here. They might find something that contradicts their worldviews. And they apparently think "nuance" can give you The Gay.

Whle correlation is indeed ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Whle correlation is indeed not causation, there is enough here to warrant the conclusion of causation.

The Minimum wage increase directly contributed to unemployment. There is an ample body of work demonstrating this connection.

The auto takeover resulted in the elimination of many dealerships and hence many jobs. It was later admitted that eliminating dealerships did nothing to improve the situation of either GM or Chrysler, but was largely an act of political spoils taking.

The health care bill resulted in hiring freezes across the country in health care and many hospitals are laying off as they struggle to trim their costs to address the immediate impact of the deep cuts in Medicare and in anticipation of later cuts from obamacare.

TARP and the auto bailout has blocked the normal function of the markets which would be to let bacdly run companies fail and to redistribute the assets of those companies into the hands of people and companies that could utilize them efficiently and create jobs. Instead the government froze the state of play and did not allow these companies to fail as they should have and we have still these large ineptly run companies that are not creating job growth or economic growth but sapping the finances of the government and eating our tax dollars.

Add to this the threats of Cap and Trade and other legislation which has had the effect of preventing companies from moving forward with any kind of growth because they are uncertain as to whether or not they can sustain it if the government ramps up taxation and regulation on them. The one thing obama has done very well is to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for business so the end result is that businesses are not expanding or growing because they cannot plan for the future.

jim x,I, for one, ... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

jim x,

I, for one, tend not to read your posts as you appear to have a terminal case of "The Stupid".

Jim m, taking it to the rea... (Below threshold)

Jim m, taking it to the realm of specific policies is where the discussion should be, at least. So while I'm sure we differ on many to most of those specifics, it at least starts off properly.

So, kudos.

Sky Captain,Sorry ... (Below threshold)

Sky Captain,

Sorry that you think so. I think a lot of people choose not to like arguments because they present a different view of the world, rather than whether or not the arguments have logic and evidence behind them.

If you think Fox, Limbaugh and Beck are presenting sound logic and I am not, then we are certainly going to part ways.

jim x wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

jim x wrote:

Otherwise, is Bush responsible for the 2001 stock crash? After all it occurred right after he took office and the GOP regained the Senate.

Well, of course, there was that September 11 thing that happened right before the market crashed in 2001.

You need to do better than that. I'm pretty sure the American voters will understand the connection between the wild-eyed policies of the children now in charge of our country and the devastation of the economy. Even if you can't.

JimX- "Fox, Limbaugh and Be... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

JimX- "Fox, Limbaugh and Beck are presenting sound logic and I am not"
+1 fixed for you.

Jim xMy comments s... (Below threshold)
epador:

Jim x

My comments stand on the post AND thread. I don't see much point in rehashing the comments from others that basically pwn you, while you still thrash about demanding we return to finish the fight, "claiming its only a flesh wound" or some such rubbish.

Your first comment made a knowingly ridiculous assertion set up as a straw man that you then burned up, and with that "shiney" claim to have debunked the post. Freshman debate club tactics.

You are a pathetic commentor at times, and this is indeed one of them.

TruthOut? Aren't they still... (Below threshold)
warchild:

TruthOut? Aren't they still promising that the double-secret indictment of Karl Rove will be released Any Day Now?

J.

-----
translastion:

I jaytea have no sensible response to the argument presented.

OK, epador. That's your pri... (Below threshold)

OK, epador. That's your privilege, and right back at you.

"I jaytea have no sensib... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"I jaytea have no sensible response to the argument presented."

Well, it's hard to come up with a sensible response to lunacy. I could loudly insist that you're neither black, white, or asian - instad that your skin color is a nice green paisley pattern. And that you've got antenna growing out of your shoulders.

Your response would be to back away slowly, right?

Same thing for any reference to Truthout. They've been round the bend for some time, and you just don't mess with crazy or point to their ramblings as 'proof' of something you're trying to establish - especially if you have to 'nuance' it.

What a load of bullshit.</p... (Below threshold)
Diane:

What a load of bullshit.

How so Diane?... (Below threshold)
Michael:

How so Diane?

Jim x has a very difficult ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim x has a very difficult time staying on point. And as I stated in a comment further down the posts, he lacks a knowledge of how government works. Simply put: he is a partisan hack. ww

Diane, it's not bullshit. ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

Diane, it's not bullshit. That smell following you around is the dogshit democrat failure that is stuck to your shoe.

No matter how hard you try to clean it, that stink will be with you for a long time. It will begin to dissipate in November, but won't be gone till January, 2013.

Oh, and Obamacare only makes the odor worse.

One of the persistent myths... (Below threshold)
Highlander:

One of the persistent myths of the right is that starting in Jan. 2007 the Dems were in complete control of what leglislation became law.

Hello there, conservatives, DID YOUR TEACHERS FAIL TO TEACH YOU ABOUT THE VETO?

From January 2007 to January 2009, Bush and the Republicans were in a position to thwart any legislation the Dems came up with to improve the economy.

Bush was very much in control his last 2 years, the presidency is more powerful than Congress, and conservatives need to stop with their stupid arguments.

Your first comment made ... (Below threshold)

Your first comment made a knowingly ridiculous assertion set up as a straw man that you then burned up

No, sigh; it's argument by analogy. Look it up.

ww apparently has a very di... (Below threshold)

ww apparently has a very difficult time understanding points he doesn't like. And, as I state in this very comment, he has no understanding of how government works. Simply put, he is a partisan hack.

- See how easy that was? Next time ww you can try an actual argument.

Re: # 18, it seems you don'... (Below threshold)

Re: # 18, it seems you don't get this argument by analogy thing either.

OK, simply put:

If something is true when it has these aspects, it should resemble a similar situation that has similar aspects, as long as nothing fundamental changes.

So for example if someone were to state that a truck would be damaged if it ran into a wall, it would also follow that a car would be damaged if it ran into a wall.

Clear so far?

So, if it's true that a party in power is responsible for any economic issues that happen on their watch - and **no other evidence is entered**, except the fact that they were in power - then the same principle should apply to Republicans too, right?

Iwogisdead, what you didn't understand about my argument is that I *DON'T* think the Republicans weren't responsible for the 2001 stock crash.

But if you **agree with me**, then it should also follow that the Democrats were not necessarily responsible for the stock crash when **they** were in power either.

In other words the correlation - that someone is in power when something happens - is not necessarily the **sole** causation - what actually causes that bad thing to happen.

Clear now?

Ah, Highlander, so what you... (Below threshold)

Ah, Highlander, so what you're arguing is that this isn't your side's fault because Bush didn't stop you from spending like madmen. So what's your excuse now?

Your analogy was made of hi... (Below threshold)
epador:

Your analogy was made of highly flammable dried grass then.

And they apparently thin... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

And they apparently think "nuance" can give you The Gay.

You have a problem with being gay?

Until I read Highlander's i... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Until I read Highlander's inane comments #28, I couldn't figure what Diane meant with what appeared to be her peculiar, telepathic comment #24.

What's the point with discussing issues with Highlander, jimx and their ilk?

They don't know squat about politics, history, world events or even current events.

They're all smoke, mirrors and bullshit, no substance, no facts, just bullshit. They're so ignorant that, without Google, they would be just spastics with keyboards.

Hello there, conservativ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Hello there, conservatives, DID YOUR TEACHERS FAIL TO TEACH YOU ABOUT THE VETO?

So... how many bills to save the economy - passed by the Democratic Congress - were vetoed by Bush?

And how many other bills - for things like military spending to fund the troops in Iraq, or other important mainstream things - with additional amendments that included stupid taxes and other spending that had nothing to do with the original legislation?

Sure, Bush could have vetoed everything the Democrats threw at him. He would never have gotten any spending bills passed, and a lot of actual, needed things would have gone by the wayside, but he sure could have vetoed everything that came across his desk. Much like Obama's going to be doing, starting early next year.

Anyone want to bet we see more vetoes from Obama in the first 8 months of 2011 than we saw from Bush in 8 years?

Nahhhh! Dems are the party ... (Below threshold)
Sir Toby Belch:

Nahhhh! Dems are the party of "the people".
They are the guardian angels of our progress.
Barney, Nan, Harry will be canonized at
some point in history....in a galaxy far, far
away! Lord Obama wills it.

cirby,One reason B... (Below threshold)
jim m:

cirby,

One reason Bush did not exercise the veto was that he needed to get congress to pass funding for the war. Antagonizing them would have been counter productive.

Much of the worst stuff has come since Barry took office, although TARP started with Bush Barry has compounded the error with his bullshit stimulus and the insanely bloated budget. All you have to do is look at the deficits and how they trended to see that Barry has spent way out of proportion. European nations are doing better than we are (with some notable exceptions) and the reason is that they avoided spending like we have.

And if Barry does use the veto frequently in the next 2 years it will be because congress is trying to undo what he passed in this last year. That's hardly something to be proud of, especially when the public is in favor of undoing those bills.

Hello Highlander, ... (Below threshold)
Donna:

Hello Highlander,

You wrote:

Hello there, conservatives, DID YOUR TEACHERS FAIL TO TEACH YOU ABOUT THE VETO?

Hello Highlander, DID YOUR TEACHERS FAIL TO TEACH YOU ABOUT CONGRESS'S ABILITY TO OVERIDE THE PRESIDENT AND ENACT LAW WITHOUT HIS APPROVAL??




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy