Rewriting history, Limbaugh described both Bush presidencies as "eight years of prosperity"
On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh described both George W Bush and George H.W. Bush's presidencies as being "eight years of prosperity." In fact, economic recessions occurred during both Bush administrations.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Limbaugh described both Bush administrations as "eight years of prosperity"
From the December 16 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: You remember, ladies and gentlemen, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, in that election, he said something like, "The era of greed and selfishness is over." He was talking about the eight years of prosperity, actually 12 years, well second-term Reagan and first-term Bush -- only term Bush. Eight years of prosperity -- "The era of greed and selfishness is over." Now after eight years of prosperity under Bush 43, we are again seeing the seething hate for profits. And this is -- the left never changes, it's who they are. You're never ever going to totally beat them back, that's why you can't give up any day.
In fact, both periods saw economic turmoil, including three recessions
George H.W. Bush was president during recession, which lasted from "July 1990 and March 1991." According to a statement by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), "[T]he committee determined that the U.S. economy reached a trough of activity in March 1991. Previously, the committee had determined that the economy reached a peak of activity in July 1990. The eight-month period between July 1990 and March 1991 is a recession in the NBER's chronology. The committee thus determined that the recession ended in March 1991 and that an expansion began at that time." George H.W. Bush was president during this time.
George W. Bush's presidency also saw two recessions. According to NBER, the economy saw a recession which "lasted 8 months," from March 2001 to November 2001. Additionally, according to NBER, the economy entered into the current recession in December 2007.
Limbaugh not the first to rewrite history; Perino claimed no "terrorist attack on our country during" Bush
Perino claimed "we did not have a terrorist attack during" Bush's "term." On the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity, during a conversation about the shooting at Fort Hood, former White House press secretary Dana Perino claimed, "They want to do all of their investigations. I don't know all of their thinking that goes into it, but, you know, we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."
*and outright LYING
8 years with Bailout Cash for Bankers to Spend?
8 years with Two Wars that don't focus on our other Enemies?
8 years of Torture & Humiliation of Abu Ghraib & Gitmo Detainees?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Yes, a very loose situation. So loose that the pants might fall off. And yes, we have let loosed the dogs of war.
And on, and on.
Not bad mr. news
Of course, that could just be a coincidence...
job growth statistics...
But I guess material prosperity is all that counts.
The only thing that is hated is corporate greed. In Rushella's world, its fine to run your company into the ground and then give yourself a huge bonus for it.
I like how he takes 4 years from Reagen and 4 years from Bush to get 8 years. Does that mean that all 8 years under Bush were not prosperous?
Is the DBTDT driven by personal issues with specific posters, or just made giddy by occasionally clicking on those icons?
That is because the drive by troll lost more than 50% on his. My 401k is spread across mulitple investments from the very safe to the semi risky, I lost almost 50%.
I only lost 25%.
The problem with Bush was expanding medicaid unnecessarily and allowing the democrats to run fannie mae to the ruination of our economy. Then the democrat october surprise (more currency manipulation georgey-porgy?) in September from a run in the money markets, we should have allowed for appropriate bankruptcy instead of wasting billions of $'s on TARP.
So no now we have 10% unemployment, a recession that could easily become a depression still, wasteful spending when we least can afford it, obamacare and cap & tax that would devastate industry, a dollar that could tank....oh yeah, these are the best of days!:<
BTW, the Democrats had no control over Congress during any part of Bush 43's two terms. In order for ANYTHING to get passed in 2007-2008, there had to be significant Republican participation and Mr. Bush had to actually sign the legislation. Mr. Bush never exercised his veto power until the Democrats got their extremely slight and insignificant majority in 2006. After that, Mr. Bush vetoed at least 4 pieces of legislation. Nice try, but repeating Republican talking points you gleaned from freerepublic doesn't mean you know what the hell you're talking about. TARP was the brainchild of Mr. Bush's administration and occurred IN Mr. Bush's administration. Had nothing to do with the Democrats.
Oh, and for the record, GWB was NOT a conservative president nor was he competent.
I know, sometimes you just want to try. It's all you can do. :)
Spend any time here and understand that my complaints about Bush about him doing what you said above, acting just like a democrat. He did however, recognize the islamic threat and fought it, winning in Iraq, destabilizing Al Qeida and stopping attacks on our soil.
If Bush had been more in tune with conservatives and economics our country would have been better off. Instead he spent like democrats, backed down when he attempted to change the regs for fannie and freddie, these are things that conservatives would have fought against. It is also why the republicans were booted out in 06 and 08, they were acting just like the dems.
The republicans have a chance if they stand up and realize that the conservative, not republican, resurgence is underway. To some degree they are recognizing that obamacare would be a disaster to our country and political careers. Americans are again showing their conservative inclinations and want their government to reflect it, not the socialist swing presently underway.
As for health care, the Democrats have blown that big time. Look at the ineptitude and the poor communication, and wobbling leadership, on this issue. Everyday there is a new proposal, this one in, that one out. Fighting, squabbling, wavering - all components of a badly managed reform bill. So people translate that into what might happen to their health care once something is in place, and it's scary. The devil you know is better than the one you don't. The left can blame the right all they want, but it's their issue, they are in control, and it's their mess.
They better figure out how to fix it or it's dead, and now Dean wants to start over? People expect that with some legislation that they don't feel so personally connected to, but not their doctors and their health. It is too important to be run by people who can't even get a bill out there.
When Bush wanted to change the regs for Fannie and Freddie, he could have done it. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress then. It wasn't because the minority democrats (that he ignored for 6 years, and then ignored for 2 years) made him back down. We hear quite often, from folks such as yourself about how resolute Mr. Bush was as President, so you're telling me Barney Frank made him drop his harder regs against mortgage companies? Come on, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
There is no conservative resurgence. Where? When? Obamacare is going to be a disaster why? Because poor people will have health care coverage now? Oh, and remember, the CBO scored the House plan as reducing deficits. Isn't that what you want to do?
We are nowhere near a socialist swing. That is completely and utterly ridiculous, and you know it.
What an amazing perspective.
Before we went into Iraq there was no Islamic threat and no Al Quida threat either, in Iraq. It wasn't until after we went in that Al Quida was able to get a firm foot hold.
Also, didn't we have to lose 3,000 people in 9/11 before he recognized the threat?
On a more somber note. Just because we haven't had another 9/11 doesn't mean there won't be another. No matter what we do, (repeat) No matter what we do, there are people in the world who are going to hate us no matter what.
Looking forward to the conservative turnover in 10 and hope they remain true to their convictions this time.
They intend to bankrupt the country, it is part of the plan to corporatize and militarize the country. Of course most conservatives do not realize that they are being played... They just think Jesus wants them to vote for Republicans.
Sometimes Realpolitik is the best the world can do.
I'll say again, stop calling yourself a "conservative." Nothing you post is conservative and very little of it is the truth.
You need to understand the difference between conservative and what became of the republicans during Bush's terms.
In the meantime, a review of political science terminology would be helpful to you.
Speaking truth (as a conservative and a proud one at that) to/about progressives.
All a candidate needs to do is declare that he loves Jesus, capital punishment and the flag and hates the "babykillers" and gays and 90% of the conservatives will vote for them. Of course the next lines of his platform include plans to abandoning social security, and public education.
Build up the non-government players in the economy the churches and corporations and destroy the basic government so that it is helpless to do anything. That is the conservative vision. It is dystopic....
WOW, you just posted this? Are you SERIOUS? WOW! You are seriously not very bright, are you? Now I know why you are a Beck/Fox/Limbaugh fanatic. Do your research on right wing authoritarianism . . . you are a textbook case.
I bet Proudcon never will mention any links between Iran, Iraq, and Reagan's terms in office and how those actions played a role in our involvement with those two countries even up to today. A little insight:
- U.S. dealings with Iran and Iraq with weapons.
- U.S. invaded Iraq twice one of those invations over weapons we gave them in the 80's.
- Now we have people saying we should invade Iran. Not to mention the coup in Iran by the CIA and England in 1953.
In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Sad! No wonder the Middle East hates the U.S. in many of those countries.
He destablilized Al Qeida? That is rich, too. They just moved to Pakistan.
It was the Republicans who changed the securities trading laws in the late 90s that generated too much unsecured capital and lead to the bubble in the financial markets. That change was authored by Senator Gramm. Of course, President Clinton shares some of the fault for signing the legislation. It was that piece of crap that caused the financial markets to freeze up last year the mortgage markets were just the trigger. Had it not been residential mortgages, it could have been the corporate real estate market which may cause the economy a lot of headaches in the next couple years.
Of course had we not been already in a deep recession last year when this happened, caused by the financial mismanagement of the Republican Congresses and the administration this Financial crisis might have been more manageble.
The problem with most conservatives like you are that you are completely ignorant of the facts.
unemployment
Carter brought the nation out of the Nixon recession followed the Reagan recession. Reagan's irrational tax cuts and deregulation started the tradition of bubble after bubble. Clinton dealt with the Bush-41 recession in his first year, only to be followed by Gingrich's attempt to shut down the U.S. Government. Bush-43 drove the country into a depression with his irrational 2001 tax cuts, hidden borrowing and spending, and refusal to regulate; and now Obama is fixing it.
With the disaster Obama inherited, you can measure his presidency two years from now.
LMAO! People who believe that BS needs their head examined! Really!
Bush 41 and 43 did nothing for this country.
Oh I wouldn't say that. It is debatable though as to whatever they "did" for the country was good.
From an individual perspective, if you were among the few who prospered then it was probably good.
If you were from the vast majority that didn't prosper from it, then it probably wasn't so good.
As far as nothing. I meant for the middle class. They helped out the rich and corporations.
The thing with Reaganomics, trickle down economics is that barely anything trickles down.
Proud Conservative you remind us of a conservative in 93 who was proudly boasting that Clinton increasing taxes would be the death of the US economy. Put your ideology aside, this economy goes through swings and leftist and rightist policies keep this country in balance.
And if the accustaion is that the Republicans are spend democrats type then why should the conservative ideology persist? The economy grew because they acted like democrats? No yes, i think yes. Like most issues Conservatives need to pick their indictment and stick to it.
Bush'43 lost his re-election bid largely BECAUSE of the economy. (What, do you think people just forget "It's the economy, stupid?" That was CLINTON'S kichty capmapign bumper-sticker mantra!)
You know... CLINTON, the guy that ACTUALLY oversaw "eight years of prosperity?" According to... what that liberal thing called... HISTORY?!
And then there's Bush... who precided over a recession in BOTH of his terms, including the one that was the worst since the 1930's, and ended two months after Obama took office?
...Since when we've had nothing but economic improvement?
And before any cons come out, clinging to the last shred they can, the jobs will come. Jobs always lag. That's always been the case. Lib's can rest assured that We'll have plenty of jobs growth just in time for the elections next year. Can't wait to see what the John Birch Republicans do with THAT bit of incovenient truth.
------------------------------------------------------------
If you really believe in the Death Penatly, then Limbaugh should be executed for murdering the truth.
President Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, saw his company declare bankruptcy within a week of his resignation.
He blamed that failure on the economic meltdown.
That happened under the Bush administration!
Incidentally, Bert Lance was the budget director for President Jimmy Carter.
His bank was, and is, solvent!
Remember Keating's bank?
Remember Neil Bush's SILVERADO?
Anyone want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
Clifford Spencer