Obama is leaving IEDs for the next President, just as Clinton did to Bush

By 79 Comments 3,031 views

obamas ieds


When Bill Clinton left office, he left a burgeoning recession on George W. Bush’s doorstep. That wasn’t the only thing he left Bush. He left Bush Osama Bin Laden. Clinton has openly boasted that he could have killed Bin Laden and chose not to try. In fact, Clinton had numerous opportunities to kill Bin Laden. But there’s more. Under Bush Bill Clinton buried an IED. The IED was a house of cards built upon lousy mortgages and trash securities sold as high value. And it was all legal, thanks to Bill Clinton.

Clinton pushed Fannie to 51% subprimes, made predatory lending legal and coerced bankers to make bad loans. Worst of all, bowing to Wall St. he opted not to regulate derivatives on the advice from his Wall St. pal Robert Rubin. That house of cards finally fell in 2007 when the economy slowed and people began to default on their mortgages. People still blame Bush,but it was Clinton buried the IED in 1998. Let us be certain that this is the cause of the financial crisis as even Barack Obama agrees:

“Food stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did,”

Recklessness, all legal, courtesy of Bill Clinton.

Leaving disasters for upcoming Presidents seems to have become a democrat tradition and Barack Obama is the new standard bearer.

Obama badly misjudged ISIS, a mess which he is leaving for the next President. In 2014 Obama announced that he had a “three year” plan to defeat ISIS, which would put the conclusion well after his departure from office ( so don’t blame me!).

Vladimir Putin is toying with Obama as a kitten would toy with a mouse. Russia routinely engages in high risk maneuvers near US ships and aircraft and Obama has nothing to say save for “excuse me sir may I have another?” as he runs out the clock to 2017.

The economy is slowing down. Some are certain a recession is coming. As if he’d learned nothing from Clinton, Obama is pushing bad loans again. (If it appears that Trump might win the election you’ll see a boatload of articles about how bad the economy is and will be. If he is elected President, all left wing pundits will write about is how bad the economy is, even before he takes office.

Obamacare exchanges are failing. Insurers are talking about unsustainable losses. The risk corridors expire in 2017 (as in, after obama leaves office)

2017 will be the real test. The law contains two programs that will expire at the beginning of that year: “Risk corridors” and “re-insurance.” Both programs conceal health insurance’s true costs – costs that truly have skyrocketed under the ACA – by subsidizing insurance companies with taxpayer money. Risk corridors give insurance companies money if their customers spend more on health care than the insurer estimated; reinsurance allows insurance companies to bill the federal government for particularly expensive patients.

The employer mandate hits full speed in , you guessed it, 2017 (as in, after obama leaves office).

It’s obvious to all but liberals that the manure is being piled high and deep at the front door of the White House for the next occupant because the current one wants credit for everything but responsibility for nothing. The bombs that obama is burying now are going to going to go off after he’s gone and they are going to do real damage no matter who is the next President.



DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

79 Responses to “Obama is leaving IEDs for the next President, just as Clinton did to Bush”

  1. 52




    This has sophisticated words in it, but here:

    Cuomo’s fellow attorney generals in Illinois, California, and Massachusetts have filed lawsuits against Countrywide and other mortgage companies in the current crisis. And those lawsuits are aimed in part at the sucker punch called “yield-spread premium” that was thrown at millions of households who got mortgages from brokers. Brokers have taken over the origination market in recent years by aggressively advertising, and they decide which lenders get the business.

    Cuomo hasn’t sued anybody over these outrageous payments to brokers—which are based on the “spread” between the high interest rate that brokers persuade unwary borrowers to accept and the par or going rate they would ordinarily have to pay. If Cuomo did sue, it might make for an awkward moment or two in court, since it was Cuomo who issued a rule in 1999 that dozens of federal courts have since found legalized the yield-spread premiums. He was the first HUD secretary to say they were “not illegal per se,” nullifying most of the 150 class-action lawsuits against them filed across the country.


    Feel free to ignore this as you have ignored the rest of the truth.

  2. 54




    In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.

    But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.

    – The Hill

    Not that you’ll understand this either

  3. 55


    Actually people should look at Jamie Gorelick, her wall between police and intelligence agencies led to 9-11 and then off to Freddie Mac she went and earned $26,000,000

  4. 57




    Yes indeed. She played a large role in causing 9-11. The Mistress of Disaster. Everywhere she goes disaster follows and she profits handsomely from it.

  5. 60


    This may confuse you but if the “decficits” under Obama are so small then how did we go from 10 trillion debt to 18+ trillion in less than 8 years under Obama?
    You see we are paying interest on all that debt and in the future it will get worse unless we get an adult in the white house to lead.

  6. 61


    @DrJohn: @DrJohn:
    Dr J that graph shows the deficit of 2009 as belonging to Obama it is the largest but since that was the budget bill signed by Bush shouldn’t it belong to him?
    And if so then please not that all the subsequent budgets actually signed by both Obama AND Congress have been lower
    What responsibility does Congress (which is has been mostly majority GOP)have for deficits?

  7. 62



    No Obumble signed it, Bush a continuing resolution to keep the gubment open.

    complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.


    You don’t know anything about that of which you speak

  8. 63


    from politifact which seems to have been used here by others
    Obama says “he has cut our deficits by 2/3
    politifact says MOSTLY TRUE

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/ Our ruling

    Obama said since taking office the country has seen “our deficits cut by two-thirds.”

    His claim is accurate if you use 2009, his first year in office with an historically high deficit, as a starting point.

    The claim ignores a stark reality about the deficits, however. The country’s spending is not expected to continue its downward route, according to federal forecasters, for factors that include increased interest payments on the debt and the lack of substantial policy changes for the country’s biggest programs, like Social Security and Medicare.

    The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.

    We rate the claim Mostly True.

  9. 64


    Didn’t deny Obumble signed the spending for fiscal year 2009 which is completely opposite of your earlier claim.

    And politifact “Pravda on the Bay”

  10. 65


    well rugger thanks for giving that link I always do ike to check primary sources to see exactly what they say well according to that article you are RIGHT that the approriation bill wasnt signed by Bush and was signed by Obama and yes it did have increases in spending but they were far far from significant
    Bush issued a veto threat on the bloated spending bills pending in Congress in late 2008. CQ estimated that the final spending bill “provided about $31 billion more in discretionary funding than was included in the fiscal 2008 versions of the nine bills” which is “about $19 billion more than Bush sought.” I would argue that Obama gets credit for the whole $31 billion in new spending. The most damning fact from the CQ piece is that “Bush had threatened to veto spending bills that exceeded his request.”

    Now one can argue that even $31 billion is a drop in the bucket when one considers that spending went from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Much of the spike in increased spending is on the mandatory spending side, and much of it can be attributed to President Obama. Look at OMB Tables on FY 2008 spending versus FY 2009 spending and you can see why the numbers spiked between those two years.
    31 billion spending more than Bush ? sigh OK GUILTY he did it. but since total spending was about 3500 billions (3.5trillion) I say the 31 was sorta Meh

  11. 66


    Anyway you want to slice it Obumble signed a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit for 09 and $1.3 trillion in 10. It’s his and the Donks on their own. Those are 3 times higher than any of W’s, and I’m not a W fan.

    But thank you for for admitting your error

  12. 67


    @Mully: well the main reason was a huge drop in tax revenues from the Great Recesioon that was a legacy of Bush
    Perhaps another reason is that Obama raised defense spending 25% higher than Bush to try and build up a military that had been depleted under Bush who was trying to fight 2 wars on the cheap. and we know how that turned out
    Remember Mully when Bush took over he was given a budget surplus under Bush with a pretty good economy going until the crash our national debt doubled.
    Why I don’t know all the answers but i am beginning to think that there are a lot of Americans not working like I do but just sitting around playing on the internet

  13. 68


    Remember Mully when Bush took over he was given a budget surplus under Bush with a pretty good economy

    The dot com bubble and subsequent recession equates to a “pretty good economy”…What’s the color of the sky in your world?

  14. 69


    @john: Here’s how Obama cuts deficits… first, he jacks them up$1.4 trillion a year. Then, he runs a bluff with Republicans using sequestration to cut spending, counting that Republicans will blink on cutting defense spending. But, the Republicans DON’T blink and sequestration takes affect, and Obama decries sequestration (his idea).

    So, as with Clinton’s success with welfare reform and cutting the budget, it is due to Republican actions and IN SPITE OF the Democrat’s policies. So, a combination of reckless, foolhardy spending and then Republican fiscal responsibility results in deficit reduction. Not DUE to Obama’s policies, but IN SPITE OF his goals.

  15. 70




    A surplus? Kindly show us, using the national debt by year, which year the debt went down, which is what would happen consequent to budget surplus.

  16. 74


    It was surplus for the year
    That is the way most people define Surplus”
    But if course in BIZZARO right wing it can/should be changed to any definition that best suits the most extreme of the right wing
    Does anyone posting here actually work?
    How do you all have so much time
    I am on my way to work now
    Are you guys all getting government checks or something ??????

  17. 76



    The CBO number provides support for Hoyer’s claim, but we think that his failure to make clear that he was comparing a projected surplus to the deficit weaken his argument.

    Given Hoyer’s wording — that when Bush came into office he “inherited” a $5.6 trillion surplus, we think a viewer would assume that it’s both a tangible figure, and that it refers to a specific point in time. In reality, it’s neither. It’s a projection of future surpluses, and it’s a figure that covers a 10-year period. In fact, the final two years of those surpluses wouldn’t even fall within Bush’s two terms in office.


  18. 77




    It was surplus for the year

    No, John, it was a projected surplus- one that assumed the economy would keep going the way it had during the dot com bubble. That bubble burst and Bush entered in the beginning of a recession instead and no surplus ever materialized. As I said before, a surplus would be evident in the national debt going down and it never did. Even the left wing Politifact agrees.

  19. 78


    So I guess the big Obama recovery wasn’t so big if it’s built on more debt. Even after tax increases and military cuts we are staring at 19 trillion in debt. More debt piled up under Obama than any other president. We spend billions each year to service that debt and you think this is success. With the typical Obama economy being about 1 to 2 per cent growth we get buried in debt not out of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *