Can No Longer Say Because of the Last 8 Years

It is time for those who want to keep blaming where we are on the last 8 years to stop.

Obama wanted the job, he asked for the job, he got the job.  He knew what he was getting and still wanted it.

No matter what you say many steps taken have only added to or made things worse.

It is time to stop blaming Bush or Rush (blaming Rush is funny).  Obama took ownership with the spending bill and the oath of office.

I don't remember (and have looked) Bush standing before the TV cameras and blaming anything on past Presidents or others for decisions he made.  As the president good or bad choices he took ownership.

It's time Obama did the same.

Grits4life Grits4life
46-50, F
57 Responses Mar 3, 2009

All I have to say is that the latest poll has only 22 percent of the population disagreeing with Obama. There must be a lot of Republicans agreeing with him.

keith i welcome any and all comments. I just want people to be more aware of what is going on and to take it upon themselves to look deeper then just the media.

Actually VendettA started it...lol. <br />
The market was not slowing it was falling...a big difference. Add 9/11 and you have a major problem. Who would take advice from a paper that has a handle on the problems of the economy. Not all of the editorials are from staff on the paper. Again that closed minded approach to what is out there is problematic. All ideas deserve thought and analysis. But when people think that the media (with the except of FOX and WSJ) is never bias, it closes out possibilities!<br />
Allow the market to adjust itself...a pretty simple concept which does not jeopardize the republic.<br />
The very real economic problems caused by our credit freeze and stockpiling inventories. So the solution is government intervention? That is what got us into the problem to begin with! How many people are caught up into the sub-prime mortgage issue? What is the overall percentage? The number is relatively small but the media has turned it into a major crisis (but no bias there).<br />
Simple solutions...allow the market to adjust itself..believe it or not that is the best thing that can happen. A number of economist are now saying the government intervention is causing the economy to get worse. Live within a budget. Fix the problems in DC. Forget the concept of nationalizing everything and fix what is currently broken. Fix Medicare. Fix Medicaid. Fix Social Security. Allow States to make their own decisions on how to handle their own problems. Fix the problems with the courts and stupid judgements. Fix the court system by having them do what they are suppose to do. Don’t bail out AIG just because the Feds have their retirement funds there. If you are going to do bailouts (which I am against) then have some real expectations. Put some real limits on what will be done. However these expectations should be the same that we have on our elected officials. Cut the pork out of budgets and live within realistic limits. Quit the political BS and blame game. Look at the private sector to pull the country and the rest of the world out of the recession. Provide incentives for the private sector, and yes that means the people with money, to invest into our economy. That is the only way the economy will rebound. Everything from vocational training to technology to finance issues. Government intervention will not do it and is not what our republic is suppose to do. Is that enough for you or do I have to provide even greater detail?<br />
Nora...deal with what people do and quit making silly statements that looking at Bush makes you sick. Seems a little childish to say the least.<br />
Grits...my apology for my part in all this. I did not mean to hi-jack your story. I do apologize for the name calling and belittling. I have always had a difficult time when individuals cannot look beyond their own ideas and believe that there are other ideas and solutions. I will stop commenting if you request. Again, I apologize for this.

any discussion is better than no discussion. I just don't like the name calling and belittiling. many people are willing to discuss but once things like that start most people just decide to stop all discussion and no discussion is what is wrong with the country. communication should not mean that one side has to have a defensive shild up for protection.

ya.... well he started it! <br />
<br />
*pouts*

Keithseeker: <br />
<br />
Yes, you're right, the market was slowing down as Bush took over, but when I say that it was in great shape, that is in comparison to the economy that Obama has taken over. Compare that market to this one. Do you still want to say that it wasn't in great shape in comparison to our current economy? Didn't think so. <br />
<br />
Yes, Republicans did have control of congress during Clinton's term, but they were too busy hunting Clinton via Starr and Tripp to bother themselves with running the country. Even conservatives like Joe Scarborough admit this mistake, because Clinton left office with high approval even after being impeached. Do you deny that lynching Clinton was the primary directive of the Republicans in congress? <br />
<br />
The Federal Reserve under both Clinton and W was horrendous. They deserve more blame than most for creating our housing bubble, and yet no one talks about the crimes of Greenspan and his ilk. I'm glad you bring the FED up. <br />
<br />
As for your ideas on fixing the economy....I'll refrain from taking advice from Murdoch's prize paper, thanks. The Wall St Journal lost most, if not all, credibility with his takeover. <br />
<br />
"Allow our republic to do what it is supposed to do"... What kind of advice is this? It's the equivalent of telling a homeless unemployed person to pick himself up by his bootstraps and get after that American dream. <br />
<br />
Talk in terms of economic realities: How does that confront the very real economic problems caused by our credit freeze and stockpiling inventories? Normal recessions can be reversed by lowering interest rates or giving tax breaks.... but most key rates are already zero or close to zero, and we've been in a perpetual system of tax breaks since 2000. Those aren't solutions, that's just another reason why this economy is so troubling, it's a different monster. Not only the credit freeze from banks not lending or purchasing debt, but there's also the subprime mortgage crisis. <br />
<br />
Is your advice on all of this really for the government to just sit back and wait for the market to fix itself? If that's really your recommendation, then you might as well not even bother expanding on your non-solutions. <br />
<br />
If, however, you have concrete ideas and real policies to help our economy, please elaborate. I believe we're entering the kitchen sink phase of reviving the economy. We lost 600,000 jobs in January, and we lost more in February. This calls for action, not political posturing and positioning for presidential runs in 2012.

VendettA...was our economy in great shape in 2000? A lot of economists would tend to disagree with that statement. The market was inflated and many were predicting a leveling out in the not too distant future. Yes, the market does that from time to time but the market. However, the market was ready to drop towards the end of Clinton’s presidency. He hit the high on 01/14/00 when the market hit 11723. Then the market started to drop. Add in 9/11 and the market goes way down. Was this all due to Bush? Of course not. Was it all due to Clinton? Of course not. By the way...didn’t the Republicans have control in the Congress during the last two years of Clinton? Further, what did the Federal Reserve do during the Clinton Administration? So, no the economy was not in great shape and 9/11 did have a slight impact on the economy. With that said, I believe the fiscal policies of Bush were problematic. I never said I was a Bush supporter like you try to suggest. Besides, who controlled Congress the last two years of his Administration? Speaking of spending money like drunken sailors...what is Congress currently doing?<br />
Sorry to say this but you are playing the blame game right now. This is not just a Bush issue. When you can finally understand that and get over it, you may begin to understand what people on here are talking about. <br />
Constructive ideas for Obama? Sure...allow the market to do what it needs to do. Allow our republic do what it is suppose to do. You may want to take the time to review the editorials from the Wall Street Journal over the past 4 weeks. Some interesting ideas on what needs to happen. Obama may want to stop moving our country to a socialist society (not something that he is doing on his own and many before him have done that...Republicans and Democrats). That’s two huge things he can do.

i do not know what back peddling you are talking about. the story clearly says tanding before the TV cameras. The reason for this is because most Americans only get their news from the tv.<br />
<br />
Why are you so hostile? Why is it so bad that I have a different opinion from you? I don't have any issues with you not agreeing with me.

keithseeker, this is a tiresome and completely uncalled for jacking of grits thread. No one needs to read about what did or did not happen between you, me, and orien on other threads. He blocked me, so if you made comments to me on any of his threads and are wondering why I never responded, that's probably your reason right there. He's recently unblocked me and we've kept things civil. If you wish, we can continue this in messages or whiteboards or you can even write a story about how I "run" from your comments, and we'll take it up there. <br />
<br />
Also, keithseeker, re-read the comments and you'll see that I'm actually agreeing with grits by saying that I don't think there's VIDEO of Bush blaming Clinton for things. I know that he has said that he inherited a recession from Clinton at events, but I don't have a video. Only a report and transcript that Olbermann talked about last night. He usually did the blaming thing through his operatives, but I'm not aware of any time that he stood in front of a camera and said he inherited problems from Clinton. Perhaps Nora knows of such video, I don't claim that they do not exist. <br />
<br />
I have made many posts about my thoughts on the "blame game", so I really don't need to be lectured on that topic. However, please acknowledge several facts. Our economy was in great shape in 2000, but was fundamentally damaged in the next 6 years (Republicans ruled in the executive and both houses) <br />
<br />
Conservatives spent like drunken sailors, but now that economy is heading off a cliff and we have democratic control of the executive and both houses, suddenly spending is a big deal to Republicans again. Funny how they suddenly got bothered about spending when its democratic spending, but could care less when its Republican spending. <br />
<br />
Instead of just being obstructionists, do any of you that are complaining about Obama have any constructive ideas? Or is it just complaining and fear mongering about the death of America?

Again..whuttup or who ever you are now...you have run from comments before and you do make insulting statements to others. We have had many running discussions in other stories so to say that I make snarky comment and disappear is crap. Did I do it in a story last week? I usually follow-up with things. Did I miss one? Maybe and I apologize for that. I might have done it once but what about all the other times? Or is your memory that short?<br />
This is the first time that you have actually stated that other administrations(i.e. democrats) might have made mistakes. In many other stories you have taken the liberal stance and place blame on conservatives. No big deal but please don’t act like you never have. Of course even here you have to take a slap at conservatives when looking at Clinton...lol.<br />
Where were you when people were saying that conservatives were bible thumping southerners who only believe in one thing? Get off your high horse and stop acting like you are so very tolerant of all others. You are like everyone else. You follow your beliefs, are not always tolerant of others and will at times make snarky comments.

American politics is so much more ineteresting than Britains. Our Prime Ministers are so stage managed none of them have uttered the pure gems of Dubya. As for any of them getting a bl0wjob, forget it. Successors always decry their predecessors, it's a defensive mechanism. Bush on the international scene did more to tarnish the US than any previous president. The excuse of WMD fell apart before the invasion but went ahead. Blackwater and Haliburton are a disgrace. I admire the states and have worked there a number of years ago. Whether u have a republican or democrat white house believe me I'm just happy that u do not have a tongue tied idiot representing the free world.

that's interesting that you claim I 'run' from your comments, keithseeker. It seems to me you drop into an ongoing discussion, leave a snarky comment towards me, and disappear. Do I need to provide a link to the last time you did this about a week ago? <br />
<br />
I am not making the stupid claim that everything is Bush's fault. I cite issues from all administrations since Reagan (all the ones of my lifetime)... but I find it really hard to swallow all the criticisms of Obama, who has been in office for less than 2 months. There were much worse travesties to our constitution and our nation in the last 8 years that people were strangely silent for. <br />
<br />
Do I disagree with some of what Clinton did? Of course! NAFTA and CAFTA were horrible mistakes. Don't ask don't tell is another miserable failure. And the blowj0b heard round the world irks me to no end, only because it gave the repressed sanctimonious republicans license to ignore every other issue in pursuit of their witch hunt. <br />
<br />
Having said all of that, I find it very offensive to have a group saying that liberals are ruining America, after watching what has happened to us since the total republican rule from 2000 - 2006. Now we have total democratic rule, and here come the conservatives pitching a fit all along the way because the richest 1% are going to lose their tax cut and we may actually try to do something about providing healthcare for our entire country. Oh NOES! Anything but that! <br />
<br />
The Republican plan moving forward is to pray that Obama (and by default, the economy) fails. If you want to be a cheerleader for America's failure, go ahead. But don't expect me to stay quiet about it, for I find it disgusting.

Vendetta...Whattup,,or whatever your name is this week...I have provided the bigger picture to you in other posts on numerous occasions. The amazing thing is you always run away from it. This story is about Grits stating that the blame game needs to end. She stated she cannot remember Bush looking at a camera and blaming Clinton. She said clearly she could not recall Bush doing that and asked for people to provide proof (which I haven’t seen yet). If you want to expand the discussion then look at the bigger picture. This is not a Bush or Obama issue...this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is clearly an issue related to the death of the Republic. If you want to place blame both sides have plenty of blame to accept. Everything from NAFTA to the de-regulation of the banking system to forcing banks to provide higher risk loans to the Federal Reserve to taking us off the gold standard and on and on. You can never keep to a specific topic. You always have to roll out your liberal viewpoint and twist stories to meet your needs. And you should talk about insulting people...you do it all the time when someone does not agree with your viewpoints. I have been on the receiving end of your insults but I have always viewed it as part of the banter that goes on. I have never viewed it as a big deal. You always tend to take opposing views as attacking you personally. That is too bad because you do at times add a lot to the discussions. Do you really think this just started with Bush? Are you really that ignorant of the facts? This process started decades ago and we will see the end of the Republic soon. It is not a Obama issue although he will get us there much faster. Many of the people on here do need a lesson in civics. Maybe you might learn something if you can step back and keep an open mind. Try it...you might like it.

the whole point of the story is that it is time for Obama to stop with the politics as ususal. Stop getting on tv every chance he gets to say "we are in a crisis", "I inherited this crisis" and such. Everyone knows what condition things were in when he went into office. <br />
<br />
He has the office he can stop campaigning. <br />
<br />
Do you have a clip for the video where Bush said these things on TV? I never said he never blamed anyone else. I just said I could not find where he looked a TV camra in the eye and said them.<br />
<br />
Each president enters office with the mess left behind by all the others. Each mess builds on other messes. It would be nice for a president to come into office and actually take care of issue with a congress that wants to really take care of issues instead of all of them being more concerend with the next election.<br />
<br />
I just feel it is time for Obama to take responsibility for the office of the President and doing that means he takes responsiblity for what he "inherited" and the effects of his actions. Getting on TV almost every day and blaming what he inherited is getting old and he is sounding more like a child talking his way out of getting punished.<br />
<br />
He got what he wanted, the office of the President. With that regardless of why it is the way it is; he owns it now and he needs to take ownership for both the good and bad of the office.

Blaming Clinton for the economy he inherited... that's funny. Perhaps Clinton was the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll as well? <br />
<br />
We already have heard about how 9/11 was really Clinton's fault, Bush could have done nothing else. It's not as if there were a warning about Osama or anything. It's not as if Bush was on vacation during that time. <br />
<br />
Oh wait, those things did occur.

Conservatives may care about poor people, but Republicans in Congress don't. They do not oppose Obama's plans because of what will happen to the poor, they oppose his plans because he is finally killing Bush's tax cuts for the richest 1% and he's closing tax loopholes for corporations which send jobs overseas. This grandstanding about spending is a dog and pony show, especially after the ridiculous spending which occurred between 2000 - 2006 when they controlled the executive and both houses.

the ones who are going to hurt the most from all of this is the poor. inflation will have no choice but to hit and with the higher taxes imposed on business prices are going to go up to cover the higher taxes. More and more new poor will emerge.

I no longer see any need to defend conservatism, since we are all going to reap the benefits of liberalism for a while. I believe after seeing and feeling the results of a mostly liberal democrat government, many on the left will move to the right, and many who have been silent will speak up. See ya when the smoke clears! Over and out.

i can not speak for anyone but myself. for me I do not agree with anything that puts the power and decision making into the government's hands and not those of the people at the local level.

#3 and #4 often take the shape of opposing social programs like the ones James asked about. Wouldn't you agree that conservatives disagree with the philosophy of the New Deal, the Great Society, and Obama's attempt to stimulate the economy and rebuild America?

conservativism is based on 4 principals<br />
<br />
1. respect for the consititution<br />
2. respect for life<br />
3. less government <br />
4. personal responsibility

ok. thanks.<br />
as I said, misconceptions abound.

no they would not agree with those statements.

I am attempting to better understand the conservative viewpoint. Who knows? I might find myself agreeing more with it.<br />
I don't mean this as a smart-*** sort of thing (honestly), I am just trying discern fact from misconception. Could someone tell me if most conservatives would agree with the following statements:<br />
<br />
1. If you live in America and you fail to succeed, then you just didn't work hard enough.<br />
<br />
2. If you live in America and you are poor, then it's your own fault.<br />
<br />
3. There should be no social security. Everyone should be on their own and responsible for their own retirement money.<br />
<br />
4. There should be no social service programs.<br />
<br />
5. There should be a fence and a minefield along our southern border.<br />
<br />
6. Jesus Christ is LORD. If you don't agree, you're in the wrong country.

You're right, and that constitutional post was right on target. These libs would sooner rip that document than read it, let alone honor and follow it!

BUSH IS DEAD LONG LIVE BUSH.

You guys all just need to read the neo-con manifesto The Project for a New American Century. Google PNAC, read the entire long document and read who signed it. It is a diabolical neo-con manifesto for global domination and no thanks to them, we are well on our way. They have had Bush had all of the pla<x>yers there in the background or on the sidelines wrecking our country every step of the way the past 8 years. I didn't see any Democrats names on the document. What they have done the past 8 years is what President Obama and his administration are trying to fix, all while the Republicans are obstructing him every step of the way because it shoots their **** from PNAC out of the water. Go ahead, read it................

Ya, but Bush didn't blame anyone on tv, so grits still has her point.

You are not alone grits.....<br />
<br />
People will look at things the way they want to, I stand with you but I also continue to pray for our President. He has a tough job ahead with almost no way out. He's been put there by many people, not just one(Bush). No matter what the current President does, he has one thing the former President didn't. A scapgoat for the people to lay blame on and blindeyed people to follow him just as long as he moves.

keithseeker-<br />
<br />
nice baseless assertions. Tell me what "bigger picture" I'm missing. Expand my "narrow mind". Or just pop in, insult people, and then leave. Whichever appeals more to you. <br />
<br />
nastygirl- <br />
<br />
this isn't a discussion about abortion, or about states rights vs federal rights. If you insist on bringing this stuff up we can discuss it elsewhere. I'm always curious what 'states rights' people have to say about the civil war.

 Grits...again one of your stories brings out the ignorance and stupidity of some of the people on<br />
here (and before you all go and get pissed off look up the definitions). The ones attacking your<br />
story and yes they are attacking, don't have a clue at to what a republic is and what it stands for.<br />
Whuttup (or whatever his name is this week) is again not looking at the larger picture and<br />
continues to put words in people's mouths that they never said or intended. Of all the people on<br />
here, he does need the civics lesson! Please keep up the good work and don't let the narrow<br />
minded individuals get you down.

abortion is not a neglected federal issue because it is not a federal issue. have you ever read the bill of rights? there is a reason that power is given to the state before it is given to the government.

You seem to be the one focusing on government funded abortions. The government is also funding measures which help prevent abortions, but never mind that, only focus on the government's support of abortion. <br />
<br />
He is not "worried" about it. It's simply another neglected issue that he's had to deal with. He's taking over from perhaps one of the most incompetent administrations in history. Even conservatives will admit his ineptitude, they are rightly embarrassed by Bush. No one has ever come into office with so many issues. No one. Once you acknowledge the immensity of the problems facing him, you might appreciate all that he's already accomplished in less than 2 months. He's already done more in 2 months than the previous administration accomplished in their 2nd term.

if you choose to run for a government office, you need to have the balls to accept responsibility for everything that is wrong. whether you are a mayor, governor, congress man president, whatever. You accept the job you accept the problems and its a waste of time to lay blame on anyone else. even if they caused the previous problems, it is now your responsibility to fix it and not waste time worrying about government funded abortion(i am pro choice but not on the governments dime) and not take away the choice of doctors to perform these procedures if they are morally against it. There are whole clinics dedicated to giving women abortions. I am furious that Obama would force doctors to say yes when asked for abortion. Why is he worried about this stuff which is NOT important on a federal level when we have so many real FEDERAL issues to worry about?

c8lorraine.... I'm not even sure how to respond to that post. So is Obama going to end the world or save it? You don't even seem to make up your mind on which. <br />
<br />
Why does he scare you? Where are you getting your information from? You don't believe he's an undercover muslim/socialist/anti-christ.... do you? <br />
<br />
If you do believe that... I'm truly sorry. You're beyond hope.

grits, I hope to the God I don't believe exists that our politicians don't start following the Bible. You'd be better off hoping that they always followed the constitution. We are not a Christian nation. <br />
<br />
You would want us to become a theocracy? That's truly scary. I mean, what part of the Bible to follow? I sometimes have to work on Sundays. I don't want to be put to death because of that. Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination, but I enjoy shrimp. I don't think parents should be able to kill their children because they disrespect and talk back to them. <br />
<br />
It would be much better if you said you wished politicians wouldn't lie, cheat, or steal, (or murder, for that matter) and that they practiced the golden rule and tried to follow the constitution.

When are people going to realise Obama doesn't give a fig about the people......he's playing Mr Nice Guy with reduced taxes...He's setting himself up as a hero to the masses.....and when world economics go south...He'll paint himself as a saviour.<br />
<br />
Dripping with charm and smooth talk.....he scares me !

Now, I dont like bush(i dont completely hate him either), but there is one thing I can say about him, he definitely knew what he believed in and acted on it. His actions were often against what others wanted but at least he chose to act in a world of passivity. It is hard to make the right decisions for a nation of people who dont want to make any. I dont think one man is going to create the "change" in the nation that we want to see. The only way change will ever happen in a positive way is if we all start standing up for what we believe in. The choice to let others choose for you is still a choice, it is just the one that gives you the least amount of control over the events in your life.

People didn't learn.<br />
<br />
Last years REBATE was included as TAXABLE INCOME on the returns we are filling out now.

Politicians are not following the Bible. If they were we would not be where we are.

Look, it's your story. I would think the Bible stuff should probably have it's own thread. I was just pointing out that you seem to scrutinize politicians more than you scrutinize the Bible.

you can have you opinions on everything and can believe what you want about the Bible. But I can say without a doubt from my life there is no propaganda in God or the Bible. I have followed it and God all my life and He has never let me down. There has been many times when I knew He was right there with me and spoke directly to me. Nothing nor no one can ever in any way show me he is not real or that the Bible is not his word for direction on how I should live my life. This one topic due to the personal experience I have had with God will never change my mind even if it ment loosing my life for believing the way I do.

You're right, it's only my opinion. It's not a fact or an attack. <br />
<br />
You're right to admire the constitution, but the Bible is the greatest piece of propaganda ever. Even a believer should be able to admit this. It's convinced people of things which no one could possibly know, such as what happens after we die. It refers to itself as its own evidence and has no other credible evidence to speak of. How can you not consider it propaganda? In the previous paragraph you talk about how you don't accept things without tearing them apart and examining them, but you don't do this to the Bible, or else you would see that it is chock full of unsubstantiated claims and wishful thinking. <br />
<br />
This is all off topic, though. When it comes to Obama's tax cuts, you do realize that we're going back to the tax rates in place before the Reagan revolution, right? Everyone on the right should quit saying that Obama is trying to start class warfare. Hasn't anyone been paying attention the past two decades? There has already been class warfare, it started when Reagan declared war on unions and the middle class by changing the tax rates to benefit the richest 1% at the expense of everyone else, with the promise that the money would trickle down to the lower classes. That trickling down you have felt wasn't Reaganomics, it was the upper class urinating on the lower classes.

goldie sorry you feel ofended and I can uderstand your feeling that way. but, I can say the same thing. It offends me that those we electe into office choose to not do their job for the collective whole but more for themselves. I am offended by the sepeation of the classes by this governemment "you are to rich so you have to have what you have earned taken away from you". I am in the 95% Obama speaks of but I look much further into his policies than just what is reported on by the news. I don't need to be told how it will work. I can take the numbers and look at what has been outlined in the bill and see with common sense that the numbers do not add up like he and his staff say they do. I am offened by the race culture separtation by so many, African-American, Indian-American and such. This does nothing but further race issues and in no way joins the country together. You and I both can be offended by many things but I did not make this group. Yet if this story had not been posted here would it have gotten as many to read it? There are times when "outrageous" steps have to be taken to get people to look at what they believe, why they believe, and find the prof to back up what they believe.<br />
<br />
As for "outrageous claims and ignore huge spectrums of reality. Your intellect has been poisoned by propaganda." that is a personal opinion. Anyone who knows me can tell you that I am the last person who would base my opinion, beliefs, thoughts on something said by someone else without my first tearing it apart and holding it up to my personal values and beliefs and how it follows the consitution and the Bible. <br />
<br />
I don't consider the Bible and the consitution propaganda.

bottom line is obama wanted the job and as of now, it appears that he is either not up to the challenge or, he has no intention of the economy getting better.<br />
<br />
I could care less who you voted for...think why the president may not want the economy to improve. Is it possible for any of you to fathom a reason.

You won't find a much bigger opponent of our wars than myself. On that issue, I agree more with Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich than with Obama. He is too afraid of being painted as weak, as are all democrats. After seeing Kerry get swift boated they hesitate, at their peril. <br />
<br />
I comment on your stories because they make outrageous claims and ignore huge spectrums of reality. Your intellect has been poisoned by propaganda.

speaking for myself i comment because some of the things you say are so utterly offensive and off that i feel i have to defend myself and other innocent people that you speak of. I dont believe in a lot of what republicans or conservatives say but i never would write a post in a group called "republicans are ruining this country". you make this horrible assertions and expect noone to say anything or everyone just to say yeah your right grits! it doenst work like that.

reality - no one in our governement now or for many many years 8+ years is following the consitution or the way they are suppose to be doing their jobs. Bush on Clinton. Show me video where the words are coming out of Bush's mouth where he is blaming Clinton for anything.<br />
<br />
whuttup/ventta what ever your name is now. look again at the powers of congress. They have control of the check book therefore they control the war then, now, past, and future. Even anti war goups know this. http://files.digitalcitizen.info/AWARE/flyer-oct06.pdf<br />
<br />
WHY CAN'T CONGRESS STOP THE WAR?<br />
And Other Questions About Our Wars in the Middle East.<br />
[1] Why can't Congress stop the war in Iraq?<br />
Actually, they can. All they have to do is stop paying for it. The Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the power "to raise and support armies," and it specifies that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." All the Democrats who since last year's election control both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to do is to refuse to vote for any more funding for the war. Because of the filibuster rule, it would only take 41 votes in the Senate to kill any funding bill. In the House, one person Speaker Nancy Pelosi can simply refuse to bring a funding bill to the floor. The administration could use the money already appropriated to bring the troops home, if the Democrats made it clear that they will not vote for any more. And a new poll shows that three out of four American don't support the President's new request for war funding.<br />
[2] So why don't the Democrats do that?<br />
Because they support the same longterm policy in the Middle East that the Republicans do. For more than fifty years, the US has insisted upon control of Middle East oil and gas, which are more extensive there than any place else on earth. But not because we need them here at home. In fact, we import only a small bit of our energy resources from the Middle East: most of it comes from the Atlantic region the US itself, followed by Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela. But control of world energy resources gives the US control of our major economic competitors in the world Europe and northeast Asia (China and Japan).<br />
[3] But aren't all the Democratic Presidential candidates against the war?<br />
Not exactly. The leading Democratic candidates are happy to attack the horrible mess that the Republican administration has made in Iraq, but they continue to support the longterm policy. They have a problem, however: more than 70% of Americans oppose the war, and they gave the Democrats majorities in the House and the Senate last year in order to bring the war to an end. So the leading Democrats have to pretend that they're against the war while admitting that even if the Democrats regain the Presidency next year, the troops will not be withdrawn. It's been said that "The function of the Democratic Party is to sell stuff to the populace the Republicans can't get away with on their own, like throwing single mothers and children off the welfare rolls or exporting America's blue collar jobs to Mexico and China" and continuing a war.<br />
[4] Aren't we bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq?<br />
They don't think so. A majority of the Iraqis in all parts of the country want the US troops to leave. And sixty percent of Iraqis think that it is acceptable to attack American troops, in order to get them to leave. That's hardly surprising imagine how Americans would react to an Arab army occupying the United States. As to democracy, the US didn't intend to allow a democratic government after the invasion in 2003, but the (largely nonviolent) resistance of the majority community, the Shi'ites forced the US to conduct elections, and ever since the US has struggled to control the government that resulted, even though that government has little real authority in the country, independent of American troops. In general, as the case of Palestine shows, the US supports democracy only when it can count on elected governments to do what they're told. Otherwise it supports dictatorships, as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.<br />
[5] But won't there be chaos in Iraq if the US troops leave a bloodbath, as there was in Vietnam?<br />
There's chaos there now. We are probably responsible for a million deaths since we invaded Iraq, four and a half years ago and perhaps at least as many (including a half million dead children) in the sanctions the US administered in the previous twelve years. We can hardly say that we are preventing a bloodbath, although it is certainly true that we owe the Iraqis huge reparations for what we've done to their country and people. But it must be provided through neutral agencies not the US military, mercenaries, or corporations. (Incidentally, although the US made the same claim before we withdrew troops from Vietnam in 1973, the bloodbath occurred in Cambodia a country which the US did not occupy because we destroyed that small peasant society by bombing it with many times the ordnance used in the entire Second World War; it was in fact the Vietnamese army that put an end to the bloodbath in Cambodia, while the US was still backing the government that carried it out.)<br />
[6] Won't the terrorists follow us home?<br />
Everyone recognizes that US actions in the Middle East are creating a whole new generation of terrorists. The people apparently responsible for the crimes of September 11, 2001, said they committed them because of the murderous sanctions against Iraq, the oppression of the Palestinians, and US military support for oppressive governments in the Muslim holy lands. That in no way justifies them, just as continuing American war crimes aren't justified by 911. But the administration has not taken serious steps to prevent new terrorist attacks, even in the US, by such things as examining all airline baggage and all containers coming into US ports. Instead, the administration is willing to permit the continuation of the threat of terrorism to justify its long term policy in the Middle East. Really to combat terrorism, the US has to reverse that policy and take seriously the control of nuclear weapons. Instead, the Bush administration's torture policy, its secret prisons, its illegal wiretapping, and the abridgment of constitutional rights, such as habeas corpus in which the Congress has collaborated are impeachable offenses that have not made us safer from terrorism.<br />
[7] Shouldn't we attack Iran, which the President says is meddling in Iraq?<br />
That would be to commit another war crime, and a very dangerous one. The US signed and in fact wrote the UN Charter, which forbids "the threat or use of force" in international affairs. The Nuremberg Tribunal, after the Second World War, condemned the German leaders for "initiating a war of aggression ... the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." And Iran is not only three times the size of Iraq, it has a substantial military that's not prostrate from years of sanctions. It's amazing that the US government, with half its army occupying Iraq, can talk with a straight about Iranian "meddling." The US government is principally concerned that it does not control Iran's large energy resources, and that they may end up as part of the RussianChinese energy grid. There seems to be a faction of the Bush administration that wants to use the US Air Force and Navy to prevent that.<br />
[8] Shouldn't we shift our attention to Afghanistan, where we're fighting a good war?<br />
The US attack on Afghanistan was also a war crime, which the US claimed was justified by 911, because it suspected that Osama bin Laden was in that country. In fact, the government of Afghanistan asked for the evidence that he was responsible for the attacks and offered to discuss sending him out of Afghanistan for trial. We don't know if they would have done so, because the US refused to provide the evidence which the director of the FBI admitted he didn't have or to negotiate Instead the US launched a bombing campaign, with the clear understanding that it might result in the starvation of several million people who of course had nothing to do with 911. Now the US has induced NATO countries to provide troops to attempt to put down a growing resistance to the government which we installed there.<br />
[9] Isn't Israel really directing American policy in the Middle East?<br />
No. Although Israel is far and away the largest recipient of US foreign and military aid, and there is a<br />
powerful Israeli lobby in the US, American policy in the region serves the strategic and economic interests of an American elite. For forty years, the US has used Israel as "cop on the beat," to help keep down America's real enemy in the Middle East the desire of any group, right or left, to free the region's resources from American control. Since the 1967 war, when Israel demonstrated it could do that, it has become a stationary aircraft carrier for the United States with bad effects on the militarized Israeli society, which now has one of the highest poverty rates in the developed world, in spite of billions of dollars from the US each year. In return, the US gives Israel, which by law is the state of one racial group, a free hand to suppress the Palestinians.<br />
[10] What should we do?<br />
Bring US troops, mercenaries, and corporations home. Negotiate fair agreements with all the countries of the region, including reparations and the removal of all nuclear weapons. And hold accountable those guilty of prosecuting this vicious war and promoting its continuance.<br />
DEFUND war in the Middle East.<br />
REFUND human needs at home and in Iraq.<br />
<br />
I do not understand why you continue to comment on my stories when you do not agree with anything in my stories or the groups they are in.

what a great lesson in civics...perhaps someone here needed it. Let me provide you with a lesson in reality. Let's discuss the "war" in Iraq. What nation are we at war with? Here's a newsflash: We are not at war. Congress never declared war. With whom would we declare war against? Iraq? No, we are trying to assist Iraq and instill a puppet government there. Al-qaida? The Taliban? No, these groups are located in many different countries. Is it a war on Terror? Sorry, can't declare war on a tactic. Insurgents? No, again, insurgents are justified in their fight against us. We are the illegal occupiers of their land. If we compared it to the American Revolution, they would be the good guys, we would be the foreign occupiers and oppressors. <br />
<br />
Bush used the authorization to use force and invaded a country that did not attack us, and did not have a thing to do with 9/11. He did this by conflating Saddam with Osama, and by taking advantage of the fear and need for revenge that America felt and channeling it towards Iraq. All of the Iraq spending was done off the official Federal budget, meaning all the funds were authorized under the guise of special emergency appropriations funds. Bush still had a tremendous deficit even when he ignored the cost of the war in the official budget, that shows you how pathetic our fiscal policy has been the past 8 years. <br />
<br />
As for your complaint that Bush never complained about Clinton... are you serious? What would Bush have to complain about? The economy he inherited was a booming economy. He certainly wasn't going to go on tv and blame Clinton for the great shape of the economy he took over. So please, don't compare it to the mess that Obama is taking over... 2 wars (oops, I mean illegal occupations) an economic meltdown which is rapidly approaching depression era levels, and a housing crisis. I don't know how you could possibly compare Obama's situation in taking over the country with what Bush had to deal with.

thanks for the long lesson in government that no one needed. talk about something putting someone to sleep. you say you never said you are a Bush supporter but your whole posting screams that you are, screams that you think he is a better man and better president than Obama. Bush did not give a flying fig about us. He took a week to get to Katrina, why because no one he loved or cared about was there. whether it was the local authorities job to handle or not a lot of people were hurt and killed and it was handled in a disasterous way that made matters even worse. people getting shot at just because they tried to get food or clothes out of abandoned stores. people are still homeless there, people still are lost. Parts of Katrina still look like a third world country. what type of leadership cares more about what goes on overseas because it makes them look good, than what is going on right at home. Republicans thats who, because you guys get a sick sense of fullfillment thinking that classwise you are better than someone else. but when its time to shut your eyes when we leave this green earth just remember all the selfishness and all the wickedness will be held up to glare back in your faces and all the riches that you all fight so hard to keep to yourselves will be left right here, you cant take it with you!

Since it appears from the comments no one either did not read the story or did not understand the story.<br />
<br />
1. Bush himself from what I can find personally did not get on national tv and place blame for his actions or inactions on anyone else. Did many of his supporters, yes. But the man Bush himself did not. <br />
2. tax cuts. 13.00 more a week in your paycheck that will have to be paid back in April of next year due to the fact that that tax rate will not be changed. In addition other taxes in other areas will be imposed taking the 13.00 and more with everyday living expenses.<br />
3. I never said I agreed with the War nor have I said I am a Bush follower. As for Congress giving authority. It seems there is some confusion as to what each branch of the government is responsible for. I was always lead to believe by the media that southern schools just didn’t hold the mustard but it is becoming more clear that southern schools seem to be the only schools teaching civics (how the government works and is suppose to work per the constitution) <br />
<br />
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH - THE PRESIDENT<br />
The power of the Executive Branch is vested in the President of the United States, who also acts as head of state and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet. The Vice President is also part of the Executive Branch, ready to assume the Presidency should the need arise.<br />
The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.<br />
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH - CONGRESS<br />
Established by Article I of the Constitution, the Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which together form the United States Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to enact legislation and declare war, the right to confirm or reject many Presidential appointments, and substantial investigative powers.<br />
The House of Representatives is made up of 435 elected members, divided among the 50 states in proportion to their total population. In addition, there are 6 non-voting members, representing the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and five territories of the United States. The presiding officer of the chamber is the Speaker of the House, elected by the Representatives. He or she is third in the line of succession to the Presidency.<br />
Members of the House are elected every two years and must be 25 years of age, a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and a resident of the state (but not necessarily the district) they represent.<br />
The House has several powers assigned exclusively to it, including the power to initiate revenue bills, impeach federal officials, and elect the President in the case of an electoral college tie.<br />
The Senate is composed of 100 Senators, 2 for each state. Until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, not by popular vote. Since then, they have been elected to six-year terms by the people of each state. Senator's terms are staggered so that about one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years. Senators must be 30 years of age, U.S. citizens for at least nine years, and residents of the state they represent.<br />
The Vice President of the United States serves as President of the Senate and may cast the decisive vote in the event of a tie in the Senate.<br />
The Senate has the sole power to confirm those of the President's appointments that require consent, and to ratify treaties. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule: the House must also approve appointments to the Vice Presidency and any treaty that involves foreign trade. The Senate also tries impeachment cases for federal officials referred to it by the House.<br />
In order to pass legislation and send it to the President for his signature, both the House and the Senate must pass the same bill by majority vote. If the President vetoes a bill, they may override his veto by passing the bill again in each chamber with at least two-thirds of each body voting in favor.<br />
<br />
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH – SURPREME COURT<br />
Where the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.<br />
Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and to that end Congress has established the United States district courts, which try most federal cases, and 13 United States courts of appeals, which review appealed district court cases.<br />
Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.<br />
Generally, Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In some cases, however — such as in the example of a dispute between two or more U.S. states — the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be ******** by Congress.<br />
The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect. Cases brought before the judiciary typically proceed from district court to appellate court and may even end at the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court hears comparatively few cases each year.<br />
Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts of a particular case.<br />
This information on the brances of government were taken from this website http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/<br />
<br />
4. Katrina. Bush did not blame anyone for the problems with what happened. In fact here is Bush in a press conference taking the Blame on himself for the government’s failure. As a personal opinion and living through many natural disasters in the south (tornados and such) I do believe that the response of the local and state governments are the most responsible for caring for their citizens. So, when it does not work correctly the responsiblity falls to local and state governments. If the federal government is to be held responsible first then there is no need for local and sate governments taking our money for these services to be put into place.<br />
<br />
5. “stop listening to that Big Fat Idiot and watching Fox News. Bush blamed Clinton plenty for the events leading up to 9/11.” <br />
Here again please show me video of Bush blaming Clinton for the events that lead to 9/11. I can not find anything with him personally saying these things. I can however find plenty of Obama himself blaming Bush and the Bush policies.<br />
I watch CNN, Fox and my local news on TV. I also like to watch Fox Business. I read from a list of 43 different news sites each day. I listen to NPR, Combs on Fox radio, Rush, Savage, Levine. I prefer the others over NPR due to the fact that NPR has no passion coming from any of it’s broadcasters. It puts me to sleep. On the other had the others are very passionate and quite entertaining. I do not agree with all that they say but at least they have passion for what they are saying and at the same time find a way to put some humor into bad times.

I agree with that you that the President needs to focus more on his job and leave the abject failure of Bush/Cheney regime. <br />
<br />
But please stop listening to that Big Fat Idiot and watching Fox News. Bush blamed Clinton plenty for the events leading up to 9/11.

Bush is the blameless president, in his own eyes. He has never taken responsibility for his mistakes. Look at the search for WMD's. They blame "faulty intel", even though governments around the world were scratching their head at the cherry picked intel that Bush and Co. chose to listen to in order to justify invading Iraq. After the war went sour, well, it was CONGRESS that gave Bush authority to invade, it wasn't HIS fault...then Katrina: say it with me: State and Local state and local state and local state and local.... Blame Bush's appointee to run FEMA (the Arabian horse guy Brownie) and the Federal government's response? No Way! It was all Mayor Ray's fault!

Yes. And he's cut our taxes too!!! Hooray! More money in my pocket! Hooray!

Thank you Lil Annie. I remember them constanly blaming every freaking thing on Clinton. Clinton did not make Bush put all of those troops over there for all of those years and torture all of those people and risk so many lives for supposed weapons of mass distruction that he now blames on "faulty intellegence". All bush has done is shift blame and say "um duh" to every serious question. I am so happy McCain didnt make it because it would be more of the same run around. At least Obama is upfront, he says what he plans to do and he makes sure it gets done. What the hell are you complaining about already, what got worse so far? He got a stimulus bill passed that is going to help people keep thier homes and put food on the table. if thats not a good thing, i dont know what is.

I didn't say there were not others blaming others in the past for things. I said Bush himself never said on national tv it was Clinton or whoever. If you can find a clip of Bush himslef blaming someone for what he was dealing with or balming someone for the decisions he was having to make then please let me know.<br />
<br />
But there have been many times Obama has stated "we inherited, failed Bush policies...and such." I personally have not been able to find where Bush himself said anything such as this. Others may have but I have not been able to find where he did.<br />
<br />
Also, please note there is a difference between being conservative and being republician. the two are not the same.

How short our memories are! I seem to recall conservatives completely blaming Clinton for the World Trade Towers. Black pots and black kettles.