To all Obama apologists on the economy. You need to go fuck yourself today.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@mister_nyx

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming “big government” and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?

It’s the Democrats fault government is shrinking and government employees like him are losing their jobs? What, it’s the Dems’ fault for not being superhumanly capable in resisting the efforts of the people you voted for? Because every economic initiative from the GOP in the last twenty years seems to have involved laying off more government employees like the OP. So blaming the Dems because the GOP got a little power again and managed to enact parts of their agenda seems off-base.

Yep. You read that right.

[Revtim]

It’s sad when the hens keep voting for foxes to guard their own hen-house.

[Defensive_Indifference]

"The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely,” Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers’ unions.

(NBC, yesterday).

You might want to tuck that fact away for later.

[mister_nyx]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Yep. You read that right.

Anyone know what state he lives in? Because I’m totally curious now what the partisan makeup of the legislature that decided to shrink their education budget was.

[Dag_Otto]

@Revtim

It’s sad when the hens keep voting for foxes to guard their own hen-house.

The curse of the birdbrain.

[Kolga]

@mister_nyx

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming “big government” and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?

This is what the Republicans I know can’t really explain. How are they going to scream for smaller government and NOT hold the resulting unemployment numbers that include the newly-laid-off government workers against Obama and the Democrats? They want smaller government, but when those former workers don’t have a job anymore, it’s “the Dems aren’t worried about jobs!” But when the Dems DON’T shrink the size of government, it’s “too much spending and too much government!”

People, pick one. You don’t get to hold the consequences of your pet policies against those people who implemented your pet policies at YOUR DIRECTION.

[rogerbox]

Where’d the OP go?

[miss_elizabeth]

Yeah, he’s out of a job now. He should have plenty of time to goof off on The Dope…

[dngnb8]

@TonySinclair

Indeed.

9/11 did not create a fiscal calamity. The DJIA closed at 9605 on 9/10/11. It had fallen down to 8235 by 9/21, but it gained over 300 points the next day, and steadily increased after that, and was back to 9741 by 11/15/11, and was over 10,000 by Christmas. What happened after that was not due to trauma from 9/11, but to Bush’s bungling — starting two wars (which, when not fought locally, are generally good for the economy) while simultaneously cutting taxes, and then wondering why the debt skyrocketed.

Wow. Are you telling me that 9/11 had zero impact on the market? Bush wasnt in office long enough to have that impact. Bush policies werent even in place yet. He barely just got a staff in place by August. One doesnt take office fully staffed. You are aware the market was already falling in Clintons last years, right?

Chart

Clinton Served until 2001. You will notice the 1200 point drop at the end of 2000. Also consider the time of admin change over and you will see the market is mixed to the tune of about 2000 points. Then 9/11 and the market hit just above 8200. It did recover some before Bush and Cheney decided to make Halliburton rich. To say 9/11 didnt have an impact on the market is purely an obtuse observation.

One more thing. Are you aware of the GASBO changes? The same accounting principals that said ENRON was solvent, were used by all of executive America, including our Government.

As for Clinton having 8 years to catch Bin Laden, Bin Laden’s first act of terrorism against the US was the 1998 embassy bombings on Africa. Clinton almost immediately ordered the CIA to apprehend him, and launched 60 cruise missiles against his camp the same month, missing him by a few hours.

I guess he could have done more, and I’m sure he would have if he had known what was coming, but we didn’t know that Bin Laden was going to attack inside US borders until August of 2001. Too bad Bush ignored that intel.

Let me see if I understand you. In the Presidential Daily Brief, Clinton informed Bush of Bin Laden (Augest 2001). So, am I to understand that Clinton didnt know until that day? Is that your presumption?

The fact is, Clinton knew of Bin Laden, made 1 attempt at him that failed. Couldnt find him for how many years? Then dropped it in Bushs lap and gave him 30 days to act. LOL. Too Funny. Forget that Bush used the attack to get back at Hussein instead of going for bin laden. Clinton failed. Forget that W failed to get bin laden in those 30 days, Daddy Bush made bin laden.

You see, this isnt a partisan issue. This is a political issue, and a failure of the executive branch of both parties.

On the other hand, after 9/11 Bush knew exactly what he had done, and he famously said that he didn’t know or care where Bin Laden was, and disbanded the CIA unit that was focusing on him. HE was the one who had almost 8 years to get him, and didn’t.

Oh I agree here. Bush used Bin laden as an excuse to go after Hussein. I think you missed where I said, I was no fan of Bush.

And Obama was the one who had the guts to ignore the sovereignty of Pakistan, and he kept his campaign promise to take Bin Laden out wherever he was. And didn’t apologize for it.

Not sure what that has to do with my points earlier. You seem to have taken my statement as some sort of partisan attack. Store your party diatribe. I wasnt lauding Bush and poo pooing Clinton.

Knee Jerk responses arent necessary.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@dngnb8

Let me see if I understand you. In the Presidential Daily Brief, Clinton informed Bush of Bin Laden (Augest 2001). So, am I to understand that Clinton didnt know until that day? Is that your presumption?

The fact is, Clinton knew of Bin Laden, made 1 attempt at him that failed. Couldnt find him for how many years? Then dropped it in Bushs lap and gave him 30 days to act. LOL. Too Funny. Forget that Bush used the attack to get back at Hussein instead of going for bin laden. Clinton failed. Forget that W failed to get bin laden in those 30 days, Daddy Bush made bin laden.

You see, this isnt a partisan issue. This is a political issue, and a failure of the executive branch of both parties.

Um, the hell? Sorry if I misunderstand, but Bill Clinton had his last day in office in Jan 2011. During the hand-over of power Clinton administration officials warned the incoming administration that they would be spending much more time on terrorism than they anticipated. The Bushies thought that their predecessors were obsessed. History shows otherwise.

In June, intelligence reports indicated that Al Q was planning something very soon. Richard Clarke wanted an all points bulletin declared. The GW Bush admin refused. Richard Clarke had worked for the Reagan administration as well, but it was his opinion that Al Gore understood American security challenges in a way that Bush never did. You can see that in the days after 9/11: GW Bush asked his intelligence contacts to show a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This left Richard Clarke and other professionals gob-smacked.

Cite: Against All Enemies

The Democratic Party is a coalition of liberals, conservatives and moderates. Republicans only embrace conservatism and quite frankly crankery. The key distinction between the two parties is that the GOP has abandoned empiricism, which tends to lead to poorly thought out policy and execution.

[elucidator]

OK, who’s gonna tell him?

[saje]

Bill Clinton had his last day in office in Jan 2011

Alternate reality much?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@saje

Alternate reality much?

Yeah. Sounds like a better one than we had.

[ElvisL1ves]

@mister_nyx

Did I read this right? Is the poster of this thread actually a Republican who is mad at Obama (and presumably other Democrats) because the Republicans that he voted for succeeded in trimming “big government” and so he and hundreds of thousands of other government employees are out of work?

Yep. It never occurred to him that the huge number of useless parasites, sucking the government tit, that he was outraged about might not be only *other *people.

Too bad about his dependents, but he’s whining about getting exactly what he wanted.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

dngnb8, I do hope you are not just slinking off without any follow up. Given your interest and thoughtful concern in advance of the actual data, I do hope you’ll be as free to share your thoughts now.

Orherwise it looks like you’re concerned with the matter only to the degree that it fits in with your current schema, or perhaps agenda.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Heh.

After --er-- Jan 2001, what was the Bush admin thinking about? They wanted to ramp up Star Wars, and there was a diplomatic crisis when a PRC jet fighter collided into a US spy plane on the coast of China. It was later called the Hainan Island Incident. It put conservatives into a lather as seen by this thread. Liberals stayed cool and collected and ultimately the steady hand of Colin Powell prevailed . Small potatoes by 911 standards, but there you go.
Citations for previous post: Against All Enemies - Wikipedia
Richard Clarke: “Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor.”
Powell shook his head. “It’s not over yet.”

It was not over. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Bush wanted a war. Here’s what happened on September 12th, 2001:

George Bush: “Look. I know you have a lot to do and all …but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way…”

I [Clarke] was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. “But Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.”

“I know, I know, but… see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…”

“Absolutely, we will look… again.” I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. “But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen”

“Look into Iraq, Saddam”, the President said testily and left us. Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror - Richard A. Clarke - Google Books
Quotes from page 32.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Kolga

This is what the Republicans I know can’t really explain. How are they going to scream for smaller government and NOT hold the resulting unemployment numbers that include the newly-laid-off government workers against Obama and the Democrats? They want smaller government, but when those former workers don’t have a job anymore, it’s “the Dems aren’t worried about jobs!” But when the Dems DON’T shrink the size of government, it’s “too much spending and too much government!”

People, pick one. You don’t get to hold the consequences of your pet policies against those people who implemented your pet policies at YOUR DIRECTION.

I prefer a Parliamentary system of government, because it provides accountability. When Reagan passed tax cuts and initiated the biggest peacetime expansion of the military since WWII, I spoke to a lot of modern conservatives who actually blamed the Democratic Congress for the deficits. This was delusional of course, but when designing systems of government, you go with conservatives you have, not the ones you wish for. Heck, even when a Republican Congress and Republican Presidency reversed budget surpluses as they spent on pointless wars and cut taxes on big donors, you still heard a fair number of Americans pompously referring to themselves as fiscally conservative. I say put the Executive and Legislature automatically in sync and let the chips fall where they may. I opine that this would have a moderating influence, as seen from the European case. I concede the controversy of this position.
ETA: Re: The OP. I can’t help but think of the book What’s the matter with Kansas?

[dngnb8]

@Measure_for_Measure

Um, the hell? Sorry if I misunderstand, but Bill Clinton had his last day in office in Jan 2011.

I think I said that.

During the hand-over of power Clinton administration officials warned the incoming administration that they would be spending much more time on terrorism than they anticipated. The Bushies thought that their predecessors were obsessed. History shows otherwise.

What youre missing is Clinton knew of this before 2001. Clinton had plenty of time to be successful. But we will just ignore that and expect Bush to handle this is the 30-60 days because Slick Willie said he should.

In June, intelligence reports indicated that Al Q was planning something very soon. Richard Clarke wanted an all points bulletin declared. The GW Bush admin refused. Richard Clarke had worked for the Reagan administration as well, but it was his opinion that Al Gore understood American security challenges in a way that Bush never did. You can see that in the days after 9/11: GW Bush asked his intelligence contacts to show a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This left Richard Clarke and other professionals gob-smacked.

I see, so let me get this straight. June, July, August, Sept 11. Giving the benefit of the doubt and say June 1. Bush had 102 days to how many years Clinton had, and 9/11 is Bushes fault.

Too funny. BTW, Im using your data here so dont ask me to cite.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of liberals, conservatives and moderates.

Republicans only embrace conservatism and quite frankly crankery. The key distinction between the two parties is that the GOP has abandoned empiricism, which tends to lead to poorly thought out policy and execution.

Got it, Dems are everyone, Reps are extremists. Knee Jerk catagorizations to the left please. I laugh at the My Party is Good, Your Party is Evil defenses.

Seriously, if youre gonna spew partisan hackery, try fox or huffpo. They would love to read your posts.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@dngnb8

Got it, Dems are everyone, Reps are extremists. Knee Jerk catagorizations to the left please. I laugh at the My Party is Good, Your Party is Evil defenses.

Seriously, if youre gonna spew partisan hackery, try fox or huffpo. They would love to read your posts.

Great. So, by the same token, care to address the data on economic performance under dem vs rep presidents?

[miss_elizabeth]

@dngnb8

Seriously, if youre gonna spew partisan hackery, try fox or huffpo. They would love to read your posts.

Why don’t you go to fucking fox or huffpo? You joined, what, a whole 10 minutes ago? And you’ve been nothing but an ignorant fuckface in all your posts.

Measure for Measure has been here since the boards started, and is a well respected, valuable member of the community. Again, you are an idiot. If anyone ought to leave and find a dumber board to post on, believe me, it’s you.