Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 4300006


(Reuters)   American Electorate blames Dumbass McBrushclearer for our current economic mess. Suck it, pundits   (reuters.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

62 clicks;  Favorite

29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2009-03-31 8:22:56 AM  
That's super special, subby, but the American Electorate has plenty of time to change its mind between now and the time when there's some actual American electoratin' happening.

I figure b-b-b-b-b-but-Bush has about another 18 months of shelf life, tops.
 
2009-03-31 8:40:03 AM  

Gulper Eel: I figure b-b-b-b-b-but-Bush has about another 18 months of shelf life, tops.


I dunno... in the last 12 months, I've heard but-Clintons by the dozens, but-GHWBs, but-Reagans, but-Carters, but-Nixons, but-FDRs, a but-Wilson or two, and even a piss-poor but-Lincoln. It looks like the statute of limitations is about 100 years, with the occasional notable exception.
 
2009-03-31 8:56:53 AM  
They're still called Hoovervilles.
 
2009-03-31 9:12:59 AM  
It doesn't matter what people think now. Accusations were flying into all corners back in 1930. But in the end, sober-minded historians recorded it all. I guarantee you, in 40 years, Bush is not going to be talked about fondly in history books, no matter how much propaganga Limbaugh delivers today. Too early to tell on Obama yet.
 
2009-03-31 9:20:26 AM  

Senescent Dawn: Too early to tell on Obama yet.


Mostly because it's impossible to have a legacy when you haven't even had a presidency yet. 70/1461 days of his potential first term, or ~5%, and people are already talking legacy. Talk about blowing your load before she's even gotten her pants off...
 
2009-03-31 9:21:00 AM  
Some 70 percent also blamed consumers for taking on too much debt and the former Bush administration for lax regulation.

Correct on the former, incorrect on the latter. The Glass-Steagall Act was largely repealed under Clinton's watch and a largely GOP congress. Though Congress did pass it with veto proof majorities, Clinton could have had some backbone and vetoed it, thus absolving himself of any future blame. Some congressman are less likely to vote for a piece of legislation if it means overriding a veto.

There was some weak attempts by the GOP in congress to tighten things up under Bush II once some realized that perhaps that wasn't a good idea, but the Dems were able to squash it and Bush ignored it. So basically, it's Congresses fault, not the presidents. Though there is plenty of blame for Clinton/Bush for either signing the law, or not doing enough to encourage congress to tighten things up.
 
2009-03-31 9:21:47 AM  

Gulper Eel: That's super special, subby, but the American Electorate has plenty of time to change its mind between now and the time when there's some actual American electoratin' happening.

I figure b-b-b-b-b-but-Bush has about another 18 months of shelf life, tops.


Was the economy in the crapper BEFORE the election? Hmmmm
 
2009-03-31 9:22:27 AM  
Bush and Clinton both share some of the blame for massive deregulation of the financial industry. There is also plenty of blame available for bankers, Wall Street, and those who lionized their greed and gave control of the US government to the very wealthy, so they could rape us all.

Senescent Dawn It doesn't matter what people think now. Accusations were flying into all corners back in 1930. But in the end, sober-minded historians recorded it all. I guarantee you, in 40 years, Bush is not going to be talked about fondly in history books, no matter how much propaganga Limbaugh delivers today. Too early to tell on Obama yet.

I want Obama to succeed for all our sakes, but fear that he will fail. As you said though, it is too early to tell.
 
2009-03-31 9:23:23 AM  

Crosshair: Correct on the former, incorrect on the latter. The Glass-Steagall Act was largely repealed under Clinton's watch and a largely GOP congress. Though Congress did pass it with veto proof majorities, Clinton could have had some backbone and vetoed it, thus absolving himself of any future blame. Some congressman are less likely to vote for a piece of legislation if it means overriding a veto.

There was some weak attempts by the GOP in congress to tighten things up under Bush II once some realized that perhaps that wasn't a good idea, but the Dems were able to squash it and Bush ignored it. So basically, it's Congresses fault, not the presidents. Though there is plenty of blame for Clinton/Bush for either signing the law, or not doing enough to encourage congress to tighten things up.


So what you're saying is that the executive branch is in no way culpable for a continued period of lax oversight on their watch, even though they ostensibly should've had both houses of Congress to back any play they chose to make?

You're Dick Cheney, aren't yo+++NO CARRIER+++
 
2009-03-31 9:23:24 AM  
I know you were too busy to read the article mcsubby.

Americans blamed:
1) banks and other financial institutions
2) their own excessive use of debt
3) lax regulations by the Bush administration

Seems about right to me.
 
2009-03-31 9:24:22 AM  

lajimi: Was the economy in the crapper BEFORE the election? Hmmmm


Yes?

The economy has been in the crapper for years, we just didn't notice it until recently. Doomsayers have been predicting this recession since 2004ish.
 
2009-03-31 9:25:17 AM  

Scrophulous Barking Duck: Bush and Clinton both share some of the blame for massive deregulation of the financial industry. There is also plenty of blame available for bankers, Wall Street, and those who lionized their greed and gave control of the US government to the very wealthy, so they could rape us all.


If only there were some process that operated on a municipal, state and federal level that would allow you to select leaders who wouldn't screw you over...
 
2009-03-31 9:27:42 AM  
I blame Phil Gramm.
 
2009-03-31 9:27:56 AM  

Bored Horde: If only there were some process that operated on a municipal, state and federal level that would allow you to select leaders who wouldn't screw you over...


It'd be nice. But that would involve removing everyone that currently holds office and breaking the two major parties apart and instituting regulation that:
1) Limits the power of the elected government
2) Prevents large parties from forming
3) Makes voting much more difficult for the public
 
2009-03-31 9:31:29 AM  
The longer we get away from Bush's presidency, the worse it looks. I get madder each time I think about. I mean - he failed at basically everything. Not just failure, but stunning failure. If you go down a list of "stuff the President should do", he seriously farked us over in all of it.

National security? FAIL.
Economy? FAIL.
International standing? FAIL.
Environmentalism? FAIL.
Internal infrastructure? FAIL.
Moral worthiness? FAIL

And its not just that he failed - its that they so clearly didn't even try. They didn't give a crap. They did the equivalence of looting the United States in favor their ideology and greed. Put those farkers in jail.
 
2009-03-31 9:33:45 AM  
Society as a whole should shoulder a good portion of blame.

From wanting big ass houses to big ass SUVS and big ass televisions all while growing a big ass, the times of excessive consumption have come around to bite everyone in their collective...um...what's that word...
 
2009-03-31 9:34:57 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Society as a whole should shoulder a good portion of blame.


I did none of those things. I accept none of the blame. I've been investing instead of consuming. Well, and living comfortably, but my comfort is the most important issue facing the world today.
 
2009-03-31 9:42:27 AM  
Crosshair: The Glass-Steagall Act was largely repealed under Clinton's watch and a largely GOP congress.

You forgot how the first part was repealed by Reagan's GOP Congress, causing the S&P loan crisis. Since that worked so well the first time, Repbs saw it necessary to remove the rest of it as well. Greenspan didn't help either by pointlessly and idiotically holding interest rates so low.
 
2009-03-31 9:43:46 AM  

GAT_00: Since that worked so well the first time, Repbs saw it necessary to remove the rest of it as well.


But don't you see? That's how we get to the free market. If you only deregulate somewhat, its not a real free market, and the government ends up farking up the economy. So we need to deregulate more! Just like now.
 
2009-03-31 9:48:36 AM  

DamnYankees: Put those farkers in jail.


Now now, that would only be rehashing the past and bring more shame upon America, a shame that far outstrips the shame we already shoulder for letting those cocksuckers walk the streets as free men. Besides, it would just set the precedent for administrations to be accountable for their actions after the fact, and you don't want that, do you? We've gotta move on, move forward, stop looking backward, help Wall Street help Main Street, etc.
 
2009-03-31 9:49:35 AM  

DamnYankees: The longer we get away from Bush's presidency, the worse it looks. I get madder each time I think about. I mean - he failed at basically everything. Not just failure, but stunning failure. If you go down a list of "stuff the President should do", he seriously farked us over in all of it.


Sure. Be critical. But what other presidents could have pulled something like this off?

img.metro.co.ukView Full Size
 
2009-03-31 9:53:06 AM  

Crosshair: Correct on the former, incorrect on the latter. The Glass-Steagall Act was largely repealed under Clinton's watch and a largely GOP congress. Though Congress did pass it with veto proof majorities, Clinton could have had some backbone and vetoed it, thus absolving himself of any future blame. Some congressman are less likely to vote for a piece of legislation if it means overriding a veto.

There was some weak attempts by the GOP in congress to tighten things up under Bush II once some realized that perhaps that wasn't a good idea, but the Dems were able to squash it and Bush ignored it. So basically, it's Congresses fault, not the presidents. Though there is plenty of blame for Clinton/Bush for either signing the law, or not doing enough to encourage congress to tighten things up.


I seem to recall a story from a couple of years ago, telling how the Bush administration apparently filed suit to prevent individual states from enforcing their own anti-predatory lending laws. That raises my "They knew it was coming and wanted to kick the turd down the road to the next administration" hackles.
 
2009-03-31 9:53:37 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Sure. Be critical. But what other presidents could have pulled something like this off?


Is it just me, or did they throw some makeup on Chevy Chase for the last panel there.
 
2009-03-31 10:13:39 AM  

t3knomanser: I_Am_Weasel: Sure. Be critical. But what other presidents could have pulled something like this off?

Is it just me, or did they throw some makeup on Chevy Chase for the last panel there.


He looks like he's motorboating in that last picture
 
2009-03-31 10:14:21 AM  

Bored Horde: He looks like he's motorboating in that last picture


And not enjoying it. It must be a fat chick.
 
2009-03-31 10:14:54 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Senescent Dawn: Too early to tell on Obama yet.

Mostly because it's impossible to have a legacy when you haven't even had a presidency yet. 70/1461 days of his potential first term, or ~5%, and people are already talking legacy. Talk about blowing your load before she's even gotten her pants off...


More to the point, the Liberal Bashing Industry isn't finished distorting the dialogue. Once historians get all that sorted out, and figure out the financial mess and so on, Bush will have retreated to a remote corner of Constitutional-law-freak history


.
 
2009-03-31 10:31:18 AM  

Occam's Chainsaw: Gulper Eel: I figure b-b-b-b-b-but-Bush has about another 18 months of shelf life, tops.

I dunno... in the last 12 months, I've heard but-Clintons by the dozens, but-GHWBs, but-Reagans, but-Carters, but-Nixons, but-FDRs, a but-Wilson or two, and even a piss-poor but-Lincoln.


Wilson sucked. C'mon, the income tax and World War I? I'll even give him a pass on Prohibition, since he vetoed the Volstead Act.
 
2009-03-31 11:11:37 AM  

Gulper Eel: That's super special, subby, but the American Electorate has plenty of time to change its mind between now and the time when there's some actual American electoratin' happening.

I figure b-b-b-b-b-but-Bush has about another 18 months of shelf life, tops.


9 months tops. Bush didn't keep us safe in his first 9 months. So, if Obama hasn't fixed the economy by 9/11/09...just like Bush, he can no longer blame the previous administration.

We really ought to make this a rule or something.
 
2009-03-31 11:26:06 AM  

Senescent Dawn: I seem to recall a story from a couple of years ago, telling how the Bush administration apparently filed suit to prevent individual states from enforcing their own anti-predatory lending laws. That raises my "They knew it was coming and wanted to kick the turd down the road to the next administration" hackles.


I read into that and it seemed to be more of a "Federal government being a dick and trampling anything involving states rights." That and some states IIRC were using questionable means to go about the whole matter.

GAT_00: You forgot how the first part was repealed by Reagan's GOP Congress, causing the S&P loan crisis. Since that worked so well the first time, Repbs saw it necessary to remove the rest of it as well. Greenspan didn't help either by pointlessly and idiotically holding interest rates so low.


You forget that the GOP did not have anywhere remotely close to a veto proof majority in Congress in 1999. There are quite a few Democrats, the vote was 362-57 just in the house, who willingly went along with this. That is why the Dems are so silent on in, because they know full well they are just as much on the hook for that as the GOP is.

Occam's Chainsaw: So what you're saying is that the executive branch is in no way culpable for a continued period of lax oversight on their watch, even though they ostensibly should've had both houses of Congress to back any play they chose to make?


No, I'm saying Congress should get more blame, since they are the ones who actually write the laws. The executive certainly should have done more to either discourage the repeal or encourage the tightening of the rules.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.