Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

NRCC denies Sessions said GOP wants to go back to Bush agenda

AS you know, Dems have spent the morning jumping all over NRCC chair Pete Sessions for apparently suggesting yesterday that "we need to go back to the exact same agenda" of the Bush years.

But an NRCC spokesman is now denying that Sessions said this, insisting that Dems are misrepresenting his remarks. NRCC spokesman Ken Spain emails over a statement saying that Sessions was in fact referring to a report by business chieftains criticizing Obama's policies as anti-business:

"Democrats are simply misrepresenting the facts. As the transcript reflects, Pete Sessions was clearly referencing the exhaustive report that was presented to the president by the Business Round Table, in which they stated that the 'cumulative effect' of President Obama's proposals have significantly hindered economic growth in this country. The fact that Democrats still can't get their minds around this argument is exactly the reason why the economic recovery has stalled and left us with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate."

A look at the transcript shows that Session's claim about going back came during an exchange that kicked off with the moderator asking about the "relative merits of Republican rule during the Bush years."

Sessions did in fact reference "that 52-page report that was presented to the president of the United States by CEOs in this country," adding that "we need to go back to the exact same agenda that is empowering the free enterprise system rather than diminish it."

The NRCC claims Sessions was referencing the views in that report. But Dems are unlikely to let up, and will continue arguing -- as they have with other, similar GOP statements -- that Sessions unwittingly revealed the true GOP agenda here.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 19, 2010; 1:16 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Financial reform , House Dems , House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama calls out Republicans as deficit frauds
Next: War escalates between Joe Sestak and right-wing pro-Israel group

Comments

Republicans think you're stupid.

The Business Round Table report IS Bush economics.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 19, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

spot on, Ethan

Posted by: SDJeff | July 19, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one getting sick of deliberate mis-quotes and twisting meanings by both parties? The Dems, including the Prez, are frantically grasping at straw men to reduce the damage caused by ramming legislation down the throats of an unwilling electorate.
The Repubs are grasping at every half-chance to make the Dems look bad on all fronts to increase their probable gains in the next election. No one seems to be trying to be fair anymore. The legit news on Fox, not the editorial shows, seems to me to be the most fair and balanced. At least they seem to give more than one viewpoint of an event.

Posted by: larbo | July 19, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"No one seems to be trying to be fair anymore"

Fair would be nice, but when is the last time anyone tried to be fair? Reflexive partisanship goes back way before any of us were born.

And claiming the most "fair and balanced" news shows are on Fox is laughable at the very least. Nice job throwing in their slogan....what, do you work for them?

Posted by: SDJeff | July 19, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Which shows on Fox are "news" shows? Fox and Friends? Megyn Kelly?

What nonsense.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | July 19, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Larbo, it's hard to take your comment seriously given the MULTIPLE statements that indicate that the GOP wants to make permanent the tax cuts for the rich while refusing to support the plight of millions of unemployed workers and their families.

No "strawman" there, these issues are REAL and effect millions upon millions of people.

The Democratic Party CARES about the American people and the economy, the Republic Party does NOT (budget-busting tax cuts for the rich but no emergency unemployment insurance benefits).

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 19, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

For Dems this is easy. Every single chance they can get, they should say that Bush was the architect of the policies that Republicans want to go back to. Republicans are going to whine about looking back, blah, blah, blah. And they should, because they know this is both effective and true. If you keep forcing Republicans to repudiate Bush economic policies and force them to try and invent some other economic policy, it works them into a corner they cannot get out of. Pretty soon they are running against the Bush tax cuts and calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq (even if they are too stupid to know it).
That helps Democrats who want the same thing.

Posted by: flounder2 | July 19, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

What the Biz Roundtable wanted is the same thing Boehner wants which is the same thing Sessions wants which is the same thing Bush gave us--lower taxes for the rich and more deregulation (repeal fin reg and health reform, gut the SEC and the EPA etc).

Posted by: Mimikatz | July 19, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

You guys just made my point.

Posted by: larbo | July 19, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Hye liberals, where are the jobs?

Where, oh where, are the jobs?

Why is the notion of "double dip recession" creeping into the news?

didn't the fed just say that the recovery is weakening?

where are the jobs?

You guys can claim that you care all you want. What you haven't done via your policies is produce a recovery from the recession.

Where are the jobs?

All the Republicans need to do is ask that question at every opportunity.

Where are the jobs?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The legit news on Fox, not the editorial shows, seems to me to be the most fair and balanced. At least they seem to give more than one viewpoint of an event.

Posted by: larbo | July 19, 2010 1:32 PM
============

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/fox-neglects-to-ask-vitter-about-scandal-primary-challenge-in-10-minute-segment-video.php

LOL.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | July 19, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty clear they have nothing new to offer. It's not just Sessions either, Kyl and Cornyn and just about anyone else you ask wants to extend the Bush tax cuts and deregulate. I don't know how they can realistically claim things will be different this time. We need to infuse jobs and money at the bottom of the consumer ladder and then maybe jobs will be created by the private sector. Right now the big companies are hoarding cash until the demand for goods and services grows contrary to the talking points of the "Round Table". For the most part corporate profits and the wealthy are doing just fine.

... and Sen John Cornyn (R-TX) told the host of CSPAN's Newsmakers that:

"Look, I think President Bush’s stock is going up a lot since he left office…I think a lot of people are looking back with a little more — with more fondness on President Bush’s administration, and I think history will treat him well."

Never mind that:

"A recent Time poll found that 71 percent blame Bush for the “balky economy,” versus 27 percent who blame President Obama. By a whopping 53-to-33 percent margin, Americans favor Obama over Bush."

"So the GOP wants to run on the Bush years? Bring it on."

http://barbara-morrill.dailykos.com/

Posted by: lmsinca | July 19, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

larbo has unwittingly demonstrated something important. Here we see Greg, an honorable guy, really trying to determine what Sessions said and meant. This is certainly the honorable thing to do. OTOH, we have had the GOP since Nixon -- and ramped to the moon under Bush & Rove -- not caring the slightest whit about truth or integrity. We have a TV news channel that is nothing but GOP propaganda (larbo's Fair& Balanced FOXy News). So as soon as the Dems take the gloves off the Republicans cry: Hey, let's not act partisan! The depths of the GOP's hypocrisy have no limits. No shame. That is what the Republicans now stand for.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 19, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Gee, that's funny Skip. Here we are talking about Bush economics and here you come trying to change the subject. Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be that GWB is RESPONSIBLE for the 8 million jobs lost?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4691566101/sizes/l/in/set-72157623367757714/

Could it be that GWB is responsible for destroying $17 TRILLION in American wealth:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4755572925/sizes/l/in/set-72157623367757714/

Could it be that Obama/Dem policies have brought back fiscal sanity and brought the country back from the brink of economic annihilation:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/speakerpelosi/4756211992/sizes/l/in/set-72157623367757714/

Could it be all those reasons why you try to change the subject away from Bush economic policies?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 19, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

You guys can claim that you care all you want. What you haven't done via your policies is produce a recovery from the recession.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 1:56 PM
================================

Which recession? You mean the BUSH CHENEY recession (closer to a Depression, really) that left the nation with $12 Trillion in GOBP debt, mired in two overseas conflicts, and a ruined economy?

The recession that Republicans in Congress have spent the last 1 1/2 years trying to keep the nation from recovering from?

That recession?
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | July 19, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but names will never hurt me.
Until you guys stop the name calling and partisal bashing, you will forever be a marginalized minority of the electorate.
I do this very same thing to a couple of radical right-wing blogs with the same results. They also are a very small minority of the electorate, and need to grow up.

Posted by: larbo | July 19, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

"Polls Find Wide Support For Jobless Benefit Extension"

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/polls-find-wide-support-for-jobless-benefit-extension/

Now let's watch Rahm & The Professionals screw this one up. How? Let's see. Perhaps by agreeing that there must be a fiscal offset and proposing spending cuts that hurt the whole nation rather than increased taxes on the UltraWealthy. You know, like HCR, where they eliminated the most popular provision , the public option, and kept all the unpopular stuff.

Geniuses, I tells ya.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 19, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

i think we should ask each republican candidate to clearly refudiate the bush agenda

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/sarah-palin-calls-on-peaceful-muslims-to-refudiate-ground-zero-mosque.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: blahgblogwordpresscom | July 19, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"Until you guys stop the name calling and partisal bashing, you will forever be a marginalized minority of the electorate."

I guess it was a bleeding heart liberal on the previous thread that referred to us as "dimocrats", referred to the president as "O'Bomba" and called Greg a "chump." And I guess it is the leftists who are labelling the president as a socialist, a marxist, a commie, and a nazi.

And if you think this is a "radical" left-wing blog then you really don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | July 19, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Again, Larbo, it's hard to take your comments seriously given the facts and given your penchant for right-wing talking points. If you have a point to make against partisanship, fine, but to do so while blasting the Dems with partisan talking points is patently hypocritical.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 19, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Bush GOP Economics 101

Create trillion dollars worth of dept in 1st year of office ,with tax cuts to the rich.To help them ship jobs overseas.

3 million jobs lost last 4 months of his term .You do the math.

Posted by: whales60 | July 19, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

GOP= Big Business. Period.

Posted by: jckdoors | July 19, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Make that 3 trillion dollars of dept

Posted by: whales60 | July 19, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

@larbo: It is difficult to take you seriously about fox "news" shows because, among other practices that a "news" organization would never do, they take items from their "opinion" shows and recycle those, generally unfounded items and then report on their "news" shows that "Some say that Obama is hiding a secret love child in Kenya" or some such drivel, which some partisan of rightwingnutistan would have been suggested on Hannity (he couldn't even outargue Colmes which says a lot) in this hypothetical example. This is so obvious that even Jon Stewart has made some really good videos showing the metamorphosis from speculation on an "opinion" show to a "report" on a "news" show.

"Fox News Channel was launched in 1996 "as a specific alternative to what its founders perceived as a liberal bias in the American media" (the network stated this in the lawsuit against Al Franken and Penguin books)."

One often-cited research study about the faulty news coverage of Fox News is from the University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) Research Center. Released in October 2003 and titled "Misperceptions, The Media and The Iraq War," the researchers from Knowledge Networks in Menlo Park, Calif. conducted a poll with nearly 10,000 respondents. The study was to see the frequency of misperceptions concerning the news coverage on the Iraq War. The questions focused on whether Iraq was involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, whether Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda terrorists, whether weapons of mass destruction have been found, and whether world opinion was for or against the U.S. invading Iraq...The study found that nearly two-thirds of Americans had vast misperceptions about the war...The study also noted that "the extent of Americans' misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions." The problem with the Fox News Channel is NOT that it supports the Republican Party or conservative views. The problem is that Fox News distorts the news to serve its purpose so much, that fact and reality are lost in a sea of half-truths and innuendo....Fox News Channel does not provide any reliable information. Its method of seamlessly combining commentary and news reports has transformed its style of TV news into nonsensical jabberwocky. Television news, in general, should not be trusted...Fox News Channel exceeds all expectations in the realm of news distortion and corporate control. The Fox News Channel style of exploiting political pundits as commentators, anchors and reporters presents an agenda -- not reality."--http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html

Posted by: srw3 | July 19, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

doing what the CEO's wanted is what created this mess.

Posted by: newagent99 | July 19, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The Business Roundtable report needs to stand on its own and Sessions' attempt to politicize it is a problem. Sessions tried to claim that during the Bush years, they did more to help business. That may be true but it created a house of cards.

Posted by: benintn | July 19, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The Business Roundtable report needs to stand on its own and Sessions' attempt to politicize it is a problem. Sessions tried to claim that during the Bush years, they did more to help business. That may be true but it created a house of cards.

Posted by: benintn | July 19, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

NRCC denies Sessions said GOP wants to go back to Bush agenda
======================================
Really? Despite "creating jobs and doubling the size of the economy" Sessions would not want to go back to the Bush Golden Years? He could have fooled all who listened to him yesterday!

But then "fooling" is what the Republicans, GOP, RNC, NRCC do.

Add this one to the growing list of "the Ones that Needed Further Explanation of what was Said was what was not Meant."

Posted by: kishorgala | July 19, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Ezra has a great post up with a graph of the Bush tax cuts and not only what they've already done to the deficit but if we continue them what the future holds. It does not compute that anyone in their right mind would campaign on this.

"To understand what's going on here, you need to go back 10 years to the passage of the Bush tax cuts. In order to maximize the size of the cuts, Republicans had to minimize the influence of minority Democrats on the package. So they chose to run the bill through the reconciliation process.

But that posed some challenges. Budget reconciliation had never been used to increase the deficit. In fact, it specifically existed to decrease the deficit. That's why one of its rules was that you couldn't use it to increase the deficit outside the budget window. Republicans realized they could take that very literally: The budget window was 10 years. So if the tax cuts expired after 10 years, they wouldn't increase the deficit outside the budget window. They'd also have the added benefit of appearing less costly in the Congressional Budget Office's estimates, as the CBO duly scored them as expiring after 10 years, which kept the long-range budget picture from exploding."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/republicans_blame_democrats_fo.html

Posted by: lmsinca | July 19, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Except that's exactly what Marco Rubio is doing despite all evidence to the contrary.

"Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has said that “you should never have to offset” tax cuts for the rich, and it would appear from these comments that Rubio wholeheartedly agrees.

However, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, the claim that tax cuts inevitably pay for themselves “is contradicted by the historical record.” Even President Bush’s own economists don’t believe that tax cuts are free, as Andrew Samwick, Chief Economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in 2003-2004, said that “no thoughtful person believes that this possible offset [the Bush tax cuts] more than compensated for the first effect of these tax cuts. Not a single one.” Edward Lazear, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in 2007 added, “I certainly would not claim that tax cuts pay for themselves.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/19/rubio-tax-pay/

Posted by: lmsinca | July 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Well, if Sessions hasn't revealed it as "Back to Bush," then what is it?

Greg, ask them "What's the difference?"

We've been hearing from Kyl and others pretty much the same thing as we heard during Bush.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

OK, I just found the letter. While I'm glossing over it, the basic argument seems to be this: "We want to be able to treat workers in the US as crappily as other countries treat theirs." http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/2010.06.21%20Letter%20to%20OMB%20Director%20Orszag%20from%20BRT%20and%20BC%20with%20Attachments.pdf

Posted by: benintn | July 19, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

This isn't Pete Sessions, but Senator John Cornyn has received more money from the oil and gas industry than all but six other members of Congress.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/cornyn-george-w-bush-stock-rising-video.php

"Look, I think President Bush's stock has gone up a lot since he left office," Cornyn said.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | July 19, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

SRW3 Great take on Faux News!!!

"The problem with the Fox News Channel is NOT that it supports the Republican Party or conservative views. The problem is that Fox News distorts the news to serve its purpose so much, that fact and reality are lost in a sea of half-truths and innuendo..."

That Larbo is why you have no credibility with thinking people. We probably all agree on this blog that there is too much name calling and not enough factual discussion and not enough links provided for documentation of statistics and claims.

But Larbo as a former broadcast journalist your gullibility is simply saddening to me.
You seem like a decent sort who is really trying to sort out the facts. THEN FORGET FOX. THEY DISTORT AND OUT AND OUT LIE.

Specifically let's just begin with a few examples you can disavow or try to pretend did not happen. As a broadcast journalist whenever I put up video of something other than the event I was reporting...I ALWAYS put up a FILE VIDEO (date info etc) over any piece of tape I ran. Fox not only does NOT DO this they deliberately lie.

Glen Beck's 9/12 gathering in D.C. was estimated by officials (Fire Dept, Emergency Services etc.) to be 50,000-60,000. Sean Hannity immediately posted a pic on his web a pic that was also used on Fox of on older march where there were a million people...IT WAS NOT THE VIDEO OF THE GLEN BECK GET TOGTHER. Later when questioned on Fox and Friends...is that not their morning news show much as Today is for NBC? Beck claimed 2-4 million attendees and when questioned by Steve Deushbag or was it Grecthen "gee I'm a beauty queen" Carlson about where Beck got those number he simply said "some" University whose name he conveniently could not remember used satellite imagery to come up with the multimillion number. Larbo this was a deliberate lie...it wasn't an accident...it was PROPAGANDA. And Beck and Fauz count on brain washed losers like you Larbo to let this crap go. They continually used footage of Palin's Campaign appearances and called it Palin at one of her book signings which of course took place a year later and drew much smaller crowds.

Don't you have any pride Larbo. How can you defend a fake news organization that has been caught in repeated LIES,..deliberate lies to take advantage of lemmings like you Larbo!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | July 19, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Start with some of the data from how bad the Bush years ended, economically...then jump to the clip of Kyl talking about how people are starting to think fondly of Bush, followed up with Sessions saying "back to the exact same policies", and one last similar example (rule of 3s)...then the repeated tagline: "This is how they would Govern".

Equals effective advertising.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 19, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Larbo:
you give your self away by framing your argument in GOP talking points
"...caused by ramming legislation down the throats of an unwilling electorate."

You see this bogus talking point is a direct misrepresentation, it was a majority in congress that voted that legislation into place. Congress people elected by the citizenry. That's how a representative democracy works. We the people voted for our representatives who then vote amongst themselves to determine what gets enacted.

Call it "the dictatorship of the majority" if you will. But to describe it as "ramming legislation down the throat" simply puts you in the same bucket as every other GOP troll in these parts. the healthcare bill was voted on by the congress, the majority of the congress approved it, that's how the system works. If you don like it you get to vite in 4 years time to change the representatives in congress.

Posted by: Bloke | July 19, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

BBQChickenMadness:

The Dems should hire you as a strategist.

Posted by: wbgonne | July 19, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

ruk, welcome back!

How was Copper Harbor? Sorry we didn't get a chance to get up there, but I'd still like to...

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 19, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey ruk, where have you been? Hope you're doing okay in FL. How are the beaches?

For a little corporate perspective to counter all the whining from the Business Round Table this is just one of many articles pertaining to the position of corporate profits in the economy. Like I said earlier they're doing fine and big surprise it's not trickling down as usual, they're hoarding the money for profit rather than helping to create jobs. We saved the banks and corporations but haven't done enough yet to get the middle class back to work.

"The problem is that an increase in corporate profits have not meant a real recovery. For over a year now, I’ve been talking about the two economies going on. One is the economy of the major corporations who have access to easy money, global markets and have been able to shed massive costs (via layoffs). The other is the real economy of small business and the average Joe which is still struggling intensely. Without the real economy recovering, true recovery will not materialize.

Additionally, we also noted recently that the buildup in cash in corporations due to the increased profitability has not led to investment in new growth areas or job creation. Instead, an increase in stock buybacks has been the trend lately. While this is good for investors, this doesn’t do much for an actual economic rebound."

http://20smoney.com/2010/07/14/corporate-profits-do-not-equate-to-a-recovery/

Posted by: lmsinca | July 19, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Where are the jobs? In China, where Bush-sponsored "free trade" policies sent, and are still sending, them.

How's that "something for nothing" thingy workin out for ya?

Posted by: lonquest | July 19, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, FOX et al get a little further along in their paranoids-trying-to-kill-cops agenda...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/upset_about_left-wing_agenda_california_man_suspec.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: bernielatham | July 19, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

All, check out the latest from Bill Kristol's "Emergency Committee for Israel":

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/war_escalates_between_right-wi.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 19, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

As was pointed out earlier, Gregory never pressed Sessions on the substantive differences between the "report" and the Bush economic plan. If sessions would like to clarify these differences, then he might have a case that his remark was taken out of context. But if there are no or very few substantive differences, then he is attempting to weasel word his way out of admitting that the republicans have no new ideas for the economy, beyond tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of big business, and privatizing social security.

Mr Sessions, we are waiting...

Posted by: srw3 | July 19, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 @ July 19, 2010 1:56 PM wrote "Hye liberals, where are the jobs?"

Let's see: When Bush was leaving, we were losing 779000 jobs a month; now we are gaining 83000 a month. That is a net gain of 862000 jobs a month.

Do you want to revert to the Bush policies?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | July 19, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Still no answer to my very basic question.

If you guys can't come up with an answer the next election is going to be devastating to you.

why not start practicing your talking points now?

where are the jobs?

it is childish to continue to blame Bush. and that excuse isn't resonating with the American people.

you'll have to have something better than Bush bashing. but that's a challenge for the liberals, after all for the past decade that's just about all they've done. Well no, there are two main debate thrusts for liberals:
(1) Bush sucks
(2) Everyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda is a racist.

Beyond that most liberals have nothing.

I've asked the same question of several threads now. Still no answer from the proponents of the current ruling party.

where are the jobs?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

skip, you just got your answer. Go back to Fox and see what your next question is supposed to be.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 19, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse


going back to the Bush Doctrine would be disaster.
It got us into two wars. Afghanistan, we cut and run on, to go to Iraq. Then had to go back and fix it now. Iran on the horizon.

Going back to the Bush era means scraping and digging for middle class to get out of the rut they were only falling in then.
Now because of the Bush Doctrine, they have fell completely in the rut and are being buried alive.

President Obama extends a hand to the party of NO, and they clench their fists.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | July 19, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Skip Here is the more pertinent question.
Where did you go to school. Did they teach reading or did you sleep through that class.
Several posters including myself have answered your childish repetition and have actually used facts with links for documentation.

Bush/Cheney lost more jobs in the first decade of this millennium than any decade since the Great Depression. In fact Bush/Cheney were the ONLY administration to lose jobs over a decade. There were 1.3 million fewer private sector jobs on Dec 31st 2009 than 12/31/1999.

In your childish thinking you believe refer to pointing out this FACT about Bushs' RECORD AS "Blaming Bush" You are a joke Skip! Pointing out FACTS is not just casting blame. If we don't know who or what caused this economic mess then we end up with misinformed folks like you Skip.

I brought up FACTS...the NUMBER OF JOBS LOST UNDER BUSH...as someone else pointed out you could take the FACTUAL NUMBER OF JOBS LOST EVERY MONTH WHEN BUSH LEFT OFFICE AND HOW MANY JOBS A MONTH WE ARE LOSING NOW...OHHH what you say...we are adding jobs.

YOU HAVE NO FACTS SKIP. But then the R's never appreciated intelligence or facts do they...they are the party of ignorance...Joe the Plumber...Sarah Palin...Jim Demint...Joe Wilson...

Posted by: rukidding7 | July 19, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

@ss28: it is childish to continue to blame Bush. and that excuse isn't resonating with the American people.

False, 71% of people blame Bush for the current economic crisis.

"(1) Bush sucks
(2) Everyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda is a racist."

1-Well that is true, most people agree that Bush did suck badly, historians, the general public, why even republicans think his economic policies suck. Why else would Sessions's office vehemently deny that Sessions was suggesting going back to the Bush economic policy (which he clearly did, whether is was the business roundtable report or not, the policy prescriptions are the same) on MTP?

2-Strawman alert!!!!!
It's not racist to oppose tax cuts for the wealthy.
It's not racist to oppose wars of choice entered under false pretenses.
It's not racist to point out that Bush exploded the deficit.
I could go on but you get the picture.

The jobs are coming, but after 8 years which ended in an economic disaster of epic proportions, where real take home wages for 90% of the population was flat, it might take a couple of years to get job creation, (which didn't even keep up with population growth during the bush years), back on track. Unfortunately, because of republican obstruction requiring 60 votes for everything, the stimulus that was already too small was shrunk to please a few preening deficit peacocks to the point that job creation while happening is very slow because of lack of demand. Of course, radically scaling back govt spending right now, would be catastrophic to the economy (but not to the top 1%), but that is what ss28 and his buds want to do...

Posted by: srw3 | July 19, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

A very informative link posted by benintn @ July 19, 2010 3:06 PM. I found particularly illuminating this little excerpt: "As an American company expands operations in its foreign affiliates, it has been estimated that for each dollar of additional wages paid in the foreign affiliate, U.S. wages increase by $1.84."

In short, the higher the unemployment in the US the more money we make!

Does anyone really want to follow the advice of these folks?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | July 19, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

well this is a falsehood:
================
Where are the jobs? In China, where Bush-sponsored "free trade" policies sent, and are still sending, them.

How's that "something for nothing" thingy workin out for ya?

===============

Even as the state of Ohio lost 400,000 jobs the portion of our economy that is based on exports, including exports to china, grew.

so that won't do as an excuse. Not even close.

And even if that were the case, what do the Democrats propose in response? Whadayagonnadoaboutit?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

let me respond to this little tidbit first:
============
skipsailing28 @ July 19, 2010 1:56 PM wrote "Hye liberals, where are the jobs?"

Let's see: When Bush was leaving, we were losing 779000 jobs a month; now we are gaining 83000 a month. That is a net gain of 862000 jobs a month.

Do you want to revert to the Bush policies?

======================

At what rate must we gain jobs to get back to the levels of unemployment we enjoyed during much of the Bush tenure? How many per month?

What is the provenance of your jobs gained data? There is a lot of government funded disinformation out there now, so provide the provenance or admit that you can't prove the numbers you offered.

It is really that simple. Even the fed is saying that the recovery is weakening. Face it.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

now a response to this:
===============
Skip Here is the more pertinent question.
Where did you go to school. Did they teach reading or did you sleep through that class.
Several posters including myself have answered your childish repetition and have actually used facts with links for documentation.

Bush/Cheney lost more jobs in the first decade of this millennium than any decade since the Great Depression. In fact Bush/Cheney were the ONLY administration to lose jobs over a decade. There were 1.3 million fewer private sector jobs on Dec 31st 2009 than 12/31/1999.

In your childish thinking you believe refer to pointing out this FACT about Bushs' RECORD AS "Blaming Bush" You are a joke Skip! Pointing out FACTS is not just casting blame. If we don't know who or what caused this economic mess then we end up with misinformed folks like you Skip.

I brought up FACTS...the NUMBER OF JOBS LOST UNDER BUSH...as someone else pointed out you could take the FACTUAL NUMBER OF JOBS LOST EVERY MONTH WHEN BUSH LEFT OFFICE AND HOW MANY JOBS A MONTH WE ARE LOSING NOW...OHHH what you say...we are adding jobs.

YOU HAVE NO FACTS SKIP. But then the R's never appreciated intelligence or facts do they...they are the party of ignorance...Joe the Plumber...Sarah Palin...Jim Demint...Joe Wilson...

======================

Again, instead of providing a simple answer I get insults. That's clear proof that the writer of the above doesn't actually have an answer.

Where are the jobs ru?

You have facts? Really? Oh my, how so very enlightening. too bad those "facts" aren't relevant. Here's a fact: ice cream has no bones. Its a fact, isn't it? And it has nothing to do with the question I'm asking. Just like your "facts".

so where are the jobs?

What you've got here is the comment thread equivalent of "the dog ate my homework". Instead you're asking me to go with "Bush/Cheney ate the jobs".

Its not true. Even if it were, you still haven't said a darned thing concerning some sort of a response.

Obama won by being not Bush, you guys are going to lose ugly this November if "not Bush" is the best you've got.

And it seems clear based on what I'm seeing here that "not Bush" is ALL you've got.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Pretty funny the Democrats can't find a new way to win an election or defeat thier "dark enemies" so they will use a tried and true process...blame Bush. Someone needs explain that many of the Democrats were in office at the same time as Bush with a Democratic majority and are just as reponsible as Bush was for his mess...only they are still in office and still screwing up.

Posted by: staterighter | July 19, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

now let me respond to this:
++++++++++++
@ss28: it is childish to continue to blame Bush. and that excuse isn't resonating with the American people.

False, 71% of people blame Bush for the current economic crisis.

"(1) Bush sucks
(2) Everyone who disagrees with the liberal agenda is a racist."

1-Well that is true, most people agree that Bush did suck badly, historians, the general public, why even republicans think his economic policies suck. Why else would Sessions's office vehemently deny that Sessions was suggesting going back to the Bush economic policy (which he clearly did, whether is was the business roundtable report or not, the policy prescriptions are the same) on MTP?

2-Strawman alert!!!!!
It's not racist to oppose tax cuts for the wealthy.
It's not racist to oppose wars of choice entered under false pretenses.
It's not racist to point out that Bush exploded the deficit.
I could go on but you get the picture.

The jobs are coming, but after 8 years which ended in an economic disaster of epic proportions, where real take home wages for 90% of the population was flat, it might take a couple of years to get job creation, (which didn't even keep up with population growth during the bush years), back on track. Unfortunately, because of republican obstruction requiring 60 votes for everything, the stimulus that was already too small was shrunk to please a few preening deficit peacocks to the point that job creation while happening is very slow because of lack of demand. Of course, radically scaling back govt spending right now, would be catastrophic to the economy (but not to the top 1%), but that is what ss28 and his buds want to do...

++++++++++++++++++++

Ok, where to begin?

First, provide some provenance for your 71% number. A link would be ideal. Absent that some other support or proof. It is a standard that people making an assertion bear the responsibility for proving said assertion. If you can't then kindly issue a public retraction.

Next, your opinion of bush nothwithstanding the Democrats will lose big time if the try to run against Bush again this cycle. We're smart enough to see that the Democrats lack the courage to confront the electorate with their record. Hence the big shouting match last week over the Gibbs' statement.

No actually I don't get the picture. You've misunderstood my point. The liberals are relying an old work horse: the slanderous accusation of racism to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. It won't work anymore and the liberals don't seem to have a plan B.

The Democrats don't have a couple of years. They have between now and election day. Perhaps the electorate wouldn't be so angry if the congress had listened to us a bit better. but they didn't much of what congress did was not well supported by the people. The Democrats will pay a hefty price for that.

In addition the stimulus has not performed as advertised. face it, you're screwed

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 19, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 @ July 19, 2010 5:23 PM: I notice that you did not respond: Do you want to go back to losing 779000 jobs a month? In contrast, I'd rather be gaining only 83000. It is MUCH better than losing 779000.

If you want to pose other questions, first answer the one you were asked. Oh, here is another you must also first answer: Why will Bush's policies work any better the next time around?

After all, they failed with Reagan and they failed with Bush.

Don't you ever learn?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | July 19, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Lively commentary here folks.

Until the jobs comes back and umemployment goes down more, the GOP will continue to hammer away on this point because this plays to their strength - by stoking fear in the electorate.

If you watched "Meet the Press" yesterday, you should be left without doubt that the GOP is devoid of any new ideas. When pressed by David Gregory neither Kyl nor Sessions offered anything concrete that the GOP would do differently this time than when GWB was president. Was hoping that these born-again deficit hawks would suggest some painful choices, or programs to cut, but both GOPers danced around the question and did not offer anything new.

Well, may be the only thing new would be those "new words" invented by ShakesPalin.

Ed C.

Posted by: foodiechan | July 19, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"where are the jobs?"

Jobs that are eliminated aren't ANYWHERE. They are GONE.

A better question is:

"What did the Republican majority (from 2001 to 2007) do to prevent American jobs from leaving the country?"

The answer, of course, is NOTHING.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 19, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

For those of you with short memories, here's a video of Dubya' screwing the world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIl2BdiGsSA

Posted by: Stacheisnotdeadyet | July 19, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Hey liberals, where are the jobs?

Where, oh where, are the jobs?
---------------------------------

They're all in Canada. Canada has made up all of the jobs lost in the Bush caused world depression. If you want a 7.8% unemployment rate, excellent health care, thriving businesses, NO failed banks, then move to Canada, because the US is still in the ditch from the Bush years. Canada is light years ahead of the United States with 7.8% unemployment rate, excellent health care (far better than Americans have), thriving businesses, NO failed banks. You in the US, are mired in 18th century thinking, while Canada is a PROGRESSIVE, 21st century nation.

Posted by: murphyj87 | July 19, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Rather than returning to the Bush agenda we should take all the paperwork for our investments and make a nice fire, take an axe to our homes, flush used motor oil down the toilet and drink a fifth of grain alcohol (let's just see how good that health insurance really is) and quit our jobs, thus avoiding (in large part) all the political red tape and the monumental increase to the deficit.

Posted by: hoser3 | July 19, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Larbo, it's hard to take your comment seriously given the MULTIPLE statements that indicate that the GOP wants to make permanent the tax cuts for the rich while refusing to support the plight of millions of unemployed workers and their families.

No "strawman" there, these issues are REAL and effect millions upon millions of people.

The Democratic Party CARES about the American people and the economy, the Republic Party does NOT (budget-busting tax cuts for the rich but no emergency unemployment insurance benefits).


You are wrong. both parties cater the rich elite and the dumbocrats took impeachment off the table

VOTE THEM OUT ALL REGUARDLESS OF PARTY!

Posted by: afikjames | July 19, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

How can you go back to something you never left? This is the reason they do not nor will have a "new" agenda for this or any other election, for you see in their minds (such as they are) the GOP is not wrong. Their agenda remains the destruction of the Government of the United States of America, this in pursuit of their “limited” Government that has not existed since before our Constitution (and the reason it was written in the first place). The problem is their methods, which are akin to someone lighting their 5 bedroom 3000sqft home in Michigan on fire and expecting to have a 2-bedroom 1000sqft bungalow in Florida when the flames die out.

Posted by: notthatdum | July 19, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company