So where is the cutoff point?

For months, we've been hearing about the "Obama Recession" from righties ... blaming Obama for the recession, even going as far back as before he announced that he was going to run for President ...

Neil Cavuto, predictably, asks if it can be called the "Bush Recovery" ... a lament I keep hearing is "well, where are the jobs?" and "Jobless Recovery" (which we had during Bush43) ... so, Neil, where are the "Bush Jobs" in the "Bush Recovery"?

Where exactly is the cutoff point?

In 2001, Republicans were calling it the "Clinton Recession" ...

The terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 were "Clinton's Fault" ...

In 1993, Waco and the ATF was "Clinton's Fault" ...

In 1993, Somalia was "Clinton's Fault" ... the three bodies being dragged through the streets was "Clinton's Fault" ...

In 1993/1994, the foreseen "economic collapse" and "record deficits" (which never happened) would be the fault of the "Clinton Economic Policies" ...

In the mid-to-late 1990s, the economy and the Dow were churning and surging ... that was "Bush(41)'s Recovery", or a "validation of Reaganomics", or, incredibly, "the results of Gerald Ford's policies" ...

Tell me (more maybe later) ... exactly where is the cutoff point? If it's "Bush's Recovery", why is it "Obama's Fault" that the "Jobs Recovery" is not happening yet?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23713.htm


When the economic collapse began a year ago, many Americans took comfort in the historical parallels with the Great Depression. As it had in 1929, the current crisis began under the clueless reign of a Republican, George W. Bush. Universally reviled since his non-response to Hurricane Katrina had exposed him and the men around him as both uncaring and incompetent — either one was forgivable, not both — Bush had reacted in the classic cold-blooded Republican form embodied by the president who gave his name to the Hoovervilles.

But all was not lost. The Democrats were coming in! Barack “Yes We Can” Obama was running well ahead in the polls. Soon our new FDR would clean up Bush’s mess.

...

Nine months into his presidency, however, it is clear that Obama is more Hoover than FDR. There has been virtually no investment in public infrastructure. There will be no public jobs programs. According to The New York Times, “Obama’s economic advisers are sifting options for a new package of tax cuts and other job creation measures to be unveiled in next year’s State of the Union address.”

No one in Congress has proposed a single jobs-creation bill. Instead, they’re working to extend unemployment benefits to 79 weeks.

Is Obama stupid? Or is he crazy? More than one out of five Americans is jobless. Many more are underemployed. There are six job seekers for every job. Inflation is out of control. Yet he thinks we can wait until January 2010? Does he really believe that tax cuts create jobs?

When Bush flew home to Texas, we thought we were getting an FDR to replace a Hoover. Instead, we got another Hoover.

Two years into Reagan's presidency we had 10% unemployment. It took FDR a couple of terms to turn unemployment around. So, calm down and look at history before you start your bitching.

...letting Wall St in his admin...Summers and Geithner.

If you look at the staffing for Treasury, it is absolutely riddled with folks who came directly from GS, Shitibank, and the other "too big to fail" institutions. Too big to fail, yet they have all failed (they just refuse to admit it); is the US Treasury the next thing that is too big for even these fuck ups to destroy?

Insert standard Right Wing screeching:

"It's going to cost the taxpayers seventeen million gazillion for each worker!"

"It's a jobs killer!"

"It's a socialist Big government run giveaway to ACORN!"

and so on, and so on ...