Quote:

---

Do you remember January 3, 2007? I do!

Many receiving this don't like G. W. Bush, and will declare that it's wrong! But this is a History lesson, so I'm sending it to all, regardless of party. And, I bet I know who won't read it -- those afraid of the truth. But it is history, and nothing we do can change the facts listed here!!

The day the Democrats took over was NOT January 20, 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
On January 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took control of Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies had SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...?
January 3rd, 2007 was the day Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney), for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (but... the sky did fall!) And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? -- OBAMA!

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel while they were driving the economy into the ditch. Budgets are not passed in the White House. They are passed by Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. Obama has now gone 1,000 days without a budget, and is still blaming it on the Republicans! In that first year, Congress had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when Bush, somewhat belatedly, got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed Lame Duck President George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of those massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself and a Democratic Congress.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is: "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20th 2009."

There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us sends it on!

"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."


Let's keep this going... and jar some memories..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Dumb ass emails full of lies are de riguer for the right. So what?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


Enumerate the lies you see so we can be enlightened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


Enumerate the lies you see so we can be enlightened.

---

Ummmm.... 'Bush' asked 17 times...? Bush was too stupid to ask for anything so complicated.

---

Quote:

---

Profligate users of exclamation marks are the worst kind of person.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Dumb ass emails full of lies are de riguer for the right. So what?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HERO:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Dumb ass emails full of lies are de riguer for the right. So what?

---

What in that email don't you agree with? On Jan 3rd, 2007 the Democrats took control of Congress. Unemployment was low and the economy was strong.

Now the conclusion is wrong. The 2008 housing/banking collapse had its roots in 1998. The collapse of GM had its roots in poor labor management and low sales. The national debt did not skyrocket until 2009 and 2010 (and ongoing with no end in sight).

---

Quote:

---

While there are some things you can pin on Democrats in Congress in 2007, like the lack of a Federal budget since then, I don't think you can draw the same conclusions he did despite his facts being accurate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


Enumerate the lies you see so we can be enlightened.

---

Ummmm.... 'Bush' asked 17 times...? Bush was too stupid to ask for anything so complicated.

---

Okay, so basically you got nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer, you have a really hazy idea of how government works. You seem to think that the senate doesn't have a peculiar rule called 'the filibuster'. Or that the congress proposes the laws it votes on. Or that the president doesn't have veto power. That JUST BECAUSE democrats were a bare majority in both houses of congress for two years that they RAN the ENTIRE country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, did you mean what Bush's puppeteers made him ask? That's not the same thing, Geeze. heh heh
You really can't attribute ANYTHING complicated (simplistic yes) to Bush- like Reagan he was too stupid to think for his own self.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer, you have a really hazy idea of how government works. You seem to think that the senate doesn't have a peculiar rule called 'the filibuster'. Or that the congress proposes the laws it votes on. Or that the president doesn't have veto power. That JUST BECAUSE democrats were a bare majority in both houses of congress for two years that they RAN the ENTIRE country.

---

So obviously you haven't been paying attention to the folks here who whine endlessly that Obama is able to do nothing about the economy, jobs, healthcare, etc. because the Republicans have a majority in the House.

Apparently you think that Bush must have been a much better President, if he should have been able to get his agenda through when both houses of Congress were controlled by the other party - something Obama can't do (just ask Niki) with only the House run by the opposition.

---

Quote:

---

So obviously you haven't been paying attention to the folks here who whine endlessly that Obama is able to do nothing about the economy, jobs, healthcare, etc. because the Republicans have a majority in the House.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
When was it that Bush had both houses controlled by the opposite party?

---

Quote:

---

The One Hundred Tenth United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009, during the last two years of the second term of President George W. Bush. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. census.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Being able to block and obstruct is not the same as 'running the entire country', which was what Kiki was talking about. No one has been saying the Republicans run the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Being able to block and obstruct is not the same as 'running the entire country', which was what Kiki was talking about. No one has been saying the Republicans run the country.

---

But being able to block and obstruct keeps the other party from doing anything toward 'running the country' as well, and in effect gives the party able to obstruct control of the government's ability to do anything. Not being able to pass a budget, for example, makes long-term planning difficult. Not being able to pass legislation promised in your platform may mean less votes next election cycle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Did the Republicans ever engage in any behavior like this when you claim the Democrats "controlled" both houses of Congress?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
So do you think the article has a point then Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
So do you think the article has a point then Geezer?

---

I think it's interesting that most of the objections to it here have to do with the number of exclamation points,

---

Quote:

---

I think it's interesting that most of the objections to it here have to do with the number of exclamation points

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And of course, if we posted some frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal chain mail, Geezer would be the FIRST to offer cogent analysis of it....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And of course, if we posted some frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal chain mail, Geezer would be the FIRST to offer cogent analysis of it....

---

I knew if you posted enough, eventually you would get something right. Well done sir!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is that why you've been posting again lately? Hoping that by the law of averages you'll eventually stumble on one thing you get right? Maybe you should change your name to BigDamnBrokenClock. Well, except that you've never been right twice in one day, of course...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Or maybe I should just parrot other peoples posts back to them and think that I am somehow clever. Nah, nobody could be that deluded.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BIGDAMNNOBODY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
And of course, if we posted some frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal chain mail, Geezer would be the FIRST to offer cogent analysis of it....

---

I knew if you posted enough, eventually you would get something right. Well done sir!

---

Quote:

---

And of course, if we posted some frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal chain mail, Geezer would be the FIRST to offer cogent analysis of it...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I think it's interesting that most of the objections to it here have to do with the number of exclamation points

---

That's interesting? I wouldn't read anything into it besides that I didn't take the article seriously. It's a piece of amateurishly-written right-wing revisionism in the form of a chain email - I don't see it as especially requiring of 'cogent analysis'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER- You're the one who posted the email. Several people- myself included- have already pointed to significant problems with it, which you cavalierly dismissed with a wave of your hand. Now you want us to go into great detail discounting an email that has no more credibility than "Saddam had WMD"?? Sorry, I played that game with rappy too many times, but I stopped even pretending to respond to him and I won't play that game with you. If you think the article has something genuine to say, then you prove it to us. Dig up the congressional history, who proposed what, who filibustered, "who voted for what and when" instead of expecting us to respond to a childish email. If YOU come up with a cogent point, I'm sure you'll get cogent responses.

But if you have to wave this stupid rag around just to say I WIN I WIN then you've truly descended to rappy-land.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

"... Obama is able to do nothing about the economy, jobs, healthcare, etc. because the Republicans have a majority in the House."

Well, ya' see, the US federal system of government works like this:

ALL THREE BRANCHES HAVE TO AGREE FOR SOMETHING TO GET DONE. If one branch doesn't agree, it can block the other two.

---

Quote:

---

That's why it doesn't matter that democrats were in control of congress for two whole years, b/c Bush was president and could block them through the veto.

---

Quote:

---

That's why it doesn't matter than Obama is president b/c the house can block him by not passing bills.

---

Quote:

---

Do you then concede that if an opposition Congress can keep the President from doing anything, they effectively have control of the government?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I think it's interesting that most of the objections to it here have to do with the number of exclamation points

---

That's interesting? I wouldn't read anything into it besides that I didn't take the article seriously. It's a piece of amateurishly-written right-wing revisionism in the form of a chain email - I don't see it as especially requiring of 'cogent analysis'.

---

So I'll ask once again. Elucidate on exactly where the "Right-wing revisionism" is. Just a couple of examples showing incorrect information would be fine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Do you then concede that if an opposition Congress can keep the President from doing anything, they effectively have control of the government?

---

Hmm, interesting point. And since the president has a veto and can keep the congress from doing anything, he too has 'control of the government'. So BOTH the president and the opposition congress have absolute control of government...

It's a pretty desperate and illogical argument Geezer.

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Do you then concede that if an opposition Congress can keep the President from doing anything, they effectively have control of the government?

---

Hmm, interesting point. And since the president has a veto and can keep the congress from doing anything, he too has 'control of the government'. So BOTH the president and the opposition congress have absolute control of government...

It's a pretty desperate and illogical argument Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I tell you what, I'll just give a couple of examples of revisionism instead, since I never said anything about 'incorrect information'.

1) This article pushes the line that the global financial crisis was largely caused by Fannie and Freddie - here's a debunking: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/for-the-last-time-
fannie-and-freddie-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/250121/

---

Quote:

---

2) This article pushes the line that Bush was not responsible for the 2009 budget (and takes it further to include 2008) - when almost all of it was his spending: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/defending-obama-again/

---

Quote:

---

So? Here's another article from the Atlantic...

---

Quote:

---

Looks like we got a tie of battling pundits on that one.

---

Quote:

---

Bush may have been President when the 2009 budget was written

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Do you then concede that if an opposition Congress can keep the President from doing anything, they effectively have control of the government?

---

Hmm, interesting point. And since the president has a veto and can keep the congress from doing anything, he too has 'control of the government'. So BOTH the president and the opposition congress have absolute control of government...

It's a pretty desperate and illogical argument Geezer.

---

Or you are not reading my entire post.

As I noted above, Bush vetoed twelve bills. 33% of his vetoes were overturned and these four bills became law. So he apparently did not have 'absolute control' over what the government did. On the other hand, since the Democrats had control of both houses of the 110th Congress, they certainly could prevent the President and his party from doing anything - so they would, in fact, have absolute control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Well, I didn't know that presidential vetoes could overridden.

---

Quote:

---

I rest my case.

---