No, Virginia, the Democrats aren’t just as bad as the Republicans.

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 @ 11:55 pm | Crazy Tea Party People, Economy

Well, if our recent invasion of trolls weren’t enough to illustrate that…Michael Tomasky compares major Bush initiatives to Obama’s to see how the opposition party cooperated.

Here’s how it all adds up:

Average Democratic Senate support for Bush: 45.5 percent.
Average Democratic House support for Bush: 36.8 percent.
Average combined Democratic support for Bush: 41.1 percent.
Average Republican Senate support for Obama: 8.8 percent.
Average Republican House support for Obama: 2.7 percent.
Average combined Republican support for Obama: 5.75 percent.

And where Republicans couldn’t win by merely withdrawing support, filibusters exploded.

If you’re mad about the government not doing enough to help the economy since the collapse of 2008 capping off two terms of Republican leadership enjoying coooperation from Congress, it certainly doesn’t make sense to be angry at Obama for not stomping his feet harder. Republicans have been waging war on him since they were thrown out in 2008, and when they got some power back in 2010 they used it to wage economic sabotage against the entire country just to have a chance in 2012.

We heard a lot about patriotism during the Bush years, but working against helping the country after the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression? And then expecting to be rewarded for it? What exactly do Republicans have to do to offend the public?


4 Responses to “No, Virginia, the Democrats aren’t just as bad as the Republicans.”

  1. Thomas Tallis Says:


  2. Henry Whistler Says:

    From same, some positivity:

    Of course, there are two major differences between President Obama’s tax cuts and President Bush’s.

    First, President Obama’s tax cuts are much more targeted at the middle class. The Bush tax cuts were heavily skewed toward the wealthy with more than half of the entire benefit going only to the richest 20 percent. President Obama’s tax cuts, on the other hand, are distributed more evenly. Eighty-five percent of the benefits of the Making Work Pay tax credit, for example, went to the bottom 80 percent of households, and because the very wealthy don’t pay payroll taxes on all of their income, the payroll tax cut, too, benefits the middle class much more than the Bush tax cuts did.

    Second, the Obama tax cuts are temporary. All of them, from those in the Recovery Act to the newly proposed ones in the American Jobs Act, either already expired or will expire in the next year. The president has proposed making some of them permanent—lower rates on income under $250,000, and a permanent fix to the AMT, among others—but many will eventually disappear. Because of this, and because the president wants to raise some additional revenue to help close the budget deficit, if you compare the entire 10-year cost of the Bush tax cuts to a similar 10-year period predicted for President Obama’s proposals, President Bush is still the bigger tax cutter.

  3. Real Illustration Says:

    Actually, that illustration adds up to Bush policy making sense to a lot of Democrats, whereas in contrast, Obama policies suck, hence the low support numbers! In sum: Bush ideas were better than Obama ideas. Besides, the real number is in the overall support total, not the selective party splicing you try to imply.

    Zandi Loses His Mind (Assuming He Ever Had One)

    Posted: 15 Sep 2011 04:44 PM PDT

    I have really had it will bailouts, all of them, but especially bailouts that come at with a huge cost to taxpayers.

    The latest heap of Keynesian clown bailout madness comes from economist Mark Zandi on how to jump-start HARP (Obama’s Home Affordable Refinance Program).

    Please consider Experts back expanding Obama mortgage refi effort
    At issue is the White House’s Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, which has seeks to provide refinancing options to millions of underwater borrowers who have no equity in their homes as long as their mortgage is backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled housing giants.

    “Jump-starting HARP requires that Fannie and Freddie not charge add-on rates, even for refinancing borrowers who have lost a lot of equity in their homes or have relatively low credit scores,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.

    As it stands now, the HARP program only allows borrowers to refinance at current low interest rates into a mortgage that is at most 25% more than their home’s current value.

    David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, acknowledged that allowing borrowers who are even more underwater, that is they owe even more than that cap, to participate would enable more qualified borrowers to refinance.

    Zandi made additional suggestions, including proposing that Fannie and Freddie could forgo borrower income verification and detailed home appraisals to keep costs down.

    As of June, roughly 840,000 borrowers have refinanced their mortgages through HARP. However, RealtyTrac reports that about 16 million of the 40 million U.S. mortgages are underwater.

    According to CoreLogic, the number of mortgages that are 25% or more underwater is 4.6 million and the number that is 50% or more is 2.3 million

    Look at the self-serving circular thinking of David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association who acknowledged that including borrowers who are even more underwater “would enable more qualified borrowers to refinance”. Of course it would. Loosen standards and more qualify for loans, by definition.

    You can temporarily jump-start nearly anything if you throw enough money at it, and that is exactly what Keynesian clown fools want to do. Unfortunately, no amount of taxpayer money is too great for any cause any fool believes in.

    Common sense dictates (and history proves), losses accelerate as you loosen standards. Forgo income verification and ignore credit scores as Zandi proposes and losses would soar.

    It is ludicrous to propose loan modifications to those with no job or no income, and those significantly upside down on their mortgage. The former cannot afford any payment and history proves the latter will walk away anyway.

    No income and no verification liar loans are among the reasons we are in this mess in the first place. Thus, Zandi clearly has a short memory, if any memory at all, coupled with no common sense whatsoever.

    The best way to “jump-start” housing is to let the market find a bottom. Once prices get sufficiently low, investors and buyers will step in. Meanwhile, any steps that artificially prop up prices and postpone foreclosures at taxpayer expense will delay the bottom in housing, delay household formation, and delay a jobs recovery as well.

    Mike “Mish” Shedlock

  4. Henry Whistler Says:

    That’s why Republicans opposed a Republican health care reform bill, hating the Heritage-approved Romney-enacted mandate. Your soundbite would almost make sense as at least a partisan jab except that Republicans have automatically opposed Republican ideas whenever Obama proposes them.