For Dems, Bush is to blame -- forever and ever

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 10:20 PM GMT
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/dems-bush-blame-forever-and-ever/550196

    In the early days of the Obama administration, a lot of people, including some Republicans, weren't much bothered by the new president's tendency to blame his predecessor for the nation's problems. After all, Barack Obama did inherit a mess from George W. Bush. The voters were inclined to give Obama time to turn things around.

    But how much time? Certainly a year was reasonable. And so, as Obama's one-year mark approached in 2010, many political analysts assumed he would stop blaming Bush for the nation's woes. The conversation would change from the problems Obama inherited to the effectiveness of his efforts to fix them.

    But a year passed, and Obama and his supporters continued to point the finger at Bush. At that point, nearly everyone assumed that when Obama's two-year mark came, he would certainly have to stop blaming his predecessor.

    But no -- Obama kept at it, all the way through the three-year mark. And now, in the president's fourth year in office, with his-re-election campaign under way, some of the president's defenders have come up with something new entirely. They're not only still blaming Bush for the problems of the Obama administration -- they're blaming Bush for anticipated problems in Obama's second term, should he win one.

    Specifically, a number of commentators on the Left have come up with a scenario in which they blame Bush for nearly all future federal budget deficits until at least 2019.

    "The economic downturn, President Bush's tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years," writes the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in a report released last week. The major drivers of deficits through 2019, the Center says, are "not of President Obama's making."

    The argument, which is popping up in liberal publications, has conveniently appeared at a time when Mitt Romney is blaming Obama for out-of-control spending. "If you want to pin blame for deficits on a president, a much more plausible candidate would be the guy who had the job before Obama," writes Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic. Asks Sahil Kapur of the widely read lefty website Talking Points Memo: "To what extent are [Obama's] decisions while in office to blame? The answer: very little."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 10:30 PM GMT
    No. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 10:37 PM GMT
    Bush is just the messenger. Its the failed GOP policies that are to blame!
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    May 18, 2012 10:37 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidNo. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.



    Yeh, what he said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 10:43 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidNo. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.


    Lol yes, go with that one. Nevermind it has little basis in reality. Do you tire of the fact that your sources are repeatedly debunked?

    It is moments like this that I know you have little regard for the poor because you would rather they suffer in pursuit of your singular partisan objective to keep a Democrat in office rather than seeing an economy thrive.

    The only problem is that when Obama came to office he also took responsibility for these problems and made them worse. The cost of the wars has been negligible relative to the overall spending problem and yet you attempt to use this point over and over and over again as if people don't pay attention.

    Do try again icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 10:55 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNo. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.


    Lol yes, go with that one. Nevermind it has little basis in reality. Do you tire of the fact that your sources are repeatedly debunked?

    It is moments like this that I know you have little regard for the poor because you would rather they suffer in pursuit of your singular partisan objective to keep a Democrat in office rather than seeing an economy thrive.

    The only problem is that when Obama came to office he also took responsibility for these problems and made them worse. The cost of the wars has been negligible relative to the overall spending problem and yet you attempt to use this point over and over and over again as if people don't pay attention.

    Do try again icon_wink.gif

    As to the question if Democrats really care about the poor, or by extension working people without political power, consider the Chrysler rescue. The UAW was put in a position that screwed the pension funds of retired Indiana teachers and cops, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. Their union was not as powerful as the UAW union bosses, so to hell with the retired teachers and cops.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 10:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNo. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.


    Lol yes, go with that one. Nevermind it has little basis in reality. Do you tire of the fact that your sources are repeatedly debunked?

    It is moments like this that I know you have little regard for the poor because you would rather they suffer in pursuit of your singular partisan objective to keep a Democrat in office rather than seeing an economy thrive.

    The only problem is that when Obama came to office he also took responsibility for these problems and made them worse. The cost of the wars has been negligible relative to the overall spending problem and yet you attempt to use this point over and over and over again as if people don't pay attention.

    Do try again icon_wink.gif


    Do you tire of spouting the same ridiculous right-wing talking points?

    If the Republican Party was putting up a credible (hell, I'd take sane, at this point) candidate, perhaps there'd be a reason to consider someone besides Obama. Romney is not that person.

    Obama did not make anything worse but, in fact, made things much better despite relentless obstruction by the Republicans. And, what has made the economy worse in Obama's time are largely Republican policies.

    The Iraq War alone is on target to cost $1 trillion:

    zFacts-Iraq-war-cost.png

    And, remember, that's a war of choice.

    Afghanistan, which is far more defensible as a policy, has cost more than half a trillion since 2001.

    The Bush tax cuts solely for the Top 5% (not the middle class ones) has cost the country another $1 trillion.

    Medicare Part D is another $1 trillion.

    So far, we're at $3.5 trillion before the lax regulations imploded the economy and the bailouts and regulatory changes that has cost us trillions more and Obama hasn't spent a dime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 11:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNo. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.


    Lol yes, go with that one. Nevermind it has little basis in reality. Do you tire of the fact that your sources are repeatedly debunked?

    It is moments like this that I know you have little regard for the poor because you would rather they suffer in pursuit of your singular partisan objective to keep a Democrat in office rather than seeing an economy thrive.

    The only problem is that when Obama came to office he also took responsibility for these problems and made them worse. The cost of the wars has been negligible relative to the overall spending problem and yet you attempt to use this point over and over and over again as if people don't pay attention.

    Do try again icon_wink.gif


    Do you tire of spouting the same ridiculous right-wing talking points?

    If the Republican Party was putting up a credible (hell, I'd take sane, at this point) candidate, perhaps there'd be a reason to consider someone besides Obama. Romney is not that person.

    Obama did not make anything worse but, in fact, made things much better despite relentless obstruction by the Republicans. And, what has made the economy worse in Obama's time are largely Republican policies.

    The Iraq War alone is on target to cost $1 trillion:

    zFacts-Iraq-war-cost.png

    And, remember, that's a war of choice.

    Afghanistan, which is far more defensible as a policy, has cost more than half a trillion since 2001.

    The Bush tax cuts solely for the Top 5% (not the middle class ones) has cost the country another $1 trillion.

    Medicare Part D is another $1 trillion.

    So far, we're at $3.5 trillion before the lax regulations imploded the economy and the bailouts and regulatory changes that has cost us trillions more and Obama hasn't spent a dime.


    First respect to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, even if you add up their costs, military spending has been LOWER than it has been - so there's no guarantee whatsoever that this money wouldn't have been spent anyway in your "war of choice". these are also CUMULATIVE numbers since those wars started. So on an annual basis since 2001, the costs have been relatively low.

    As for your supposed tax cuts "costing" the US government money. Only liberals seem to believe that the money earned by these people is not their own but lent to them as if by some benevolence. And you seem to think that if these tax cuts were not implemented there would necessarily be exactly the same amount of tax revenues. You seem to forget the fact that almost no tax policy has resulted in as much income as anticipated other than the capital gains cut.

    I would however agree that the pharmacare component and entitlement was not a good idea - but this is fractional compared to the overall entitlements in social security and Medicare that were pre-existing that the Democrats and those like you refuse to acknowledge that a problem even exists!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2012 11:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidNo. He's just to blame for the policies he put in place that led to two unfunded wars, a huge new entitlement program (unpaid for, of course), and the collapse of the economy and the majority of bailouts sans strings, from which the country is still climbing out.


    Lol yes, go with that one. Nevermind it has little basis in reality. Do you tire of the fact that your sources are repeatedly debunked?

    It is moments like this that I know you have little regard for the poor because you would rather they suffer in pursuit of your singular partisan objective to keep a Democrat in office rather than seeing an economy thrive.

    The only problem is that when Obama came to office he also took responsibility for these problems and made them worse. The cost of the wars has been negligible relative to the overall spending problem and yet you attempt to use this point over and over and over again as if people don't pay attention.

    Do try again icon_wink.gif


    Do you tire of spouting the same ridiculous right-wing talking points?

    If the Republican Party was putting up a credible (hell, I'd take sane, at this point) candidate, perhaps there'd be a reason to consider someone besides Obama. Romney is not that person.

    Obama did not make anything worse but, in fact, made things much better despite relentless obstruction by the Republicans. And, what has made the economy worse in Obama's time are largely Republican policies.

    The Iraq War alone is on target to cost $1 trillion:

    zFacts-Iraq-war-cost.png

    And, remember, that's a war of choice.

    Afghanistan, which is far more defensible as a policy, has cost more than half a trillion since 2001.

    The Bush tax cuts solely for the Top 5% (not the middle class ones) has cost the country another $1 trillion.

    Medicare Part D is another $1 trillion.

    So far, we're at $3.5 trillion before the lax regulations imploded the economy and the bailouts and regulatory changes that has cost us trillions more and Obama hasn't spent a dime.


    First respect to both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, even if you add up their costs, military spending has been LOWER than it has been - so there's no guarantee whatsoever that this money wouldn't have been spent anyway in your "war of choice". these are also CUMULATIVE numbers since those wars started. So on an annual basis since 2001, the costs have been relatively low.

    As for your supposed tax cuts "costing" the US government money. Only liberals seem to believe that the money earned by these people is not their own but lent to them as if by some benevolence. And you seem to think that if these tax cuts were not implemented there would necessarily be exactly the same amount of tax revenues. You seem to forget the fact that almost no tax policy has resulted in as much income as anticipated other than the capital gains cut.

    I would however agree that the pharmacare component and entitlement was not a good idea - but this is fractional compared to the overall entitlements in social security and Medicare that were pre-existing that the Democrats and those like you refuse to acknowledge that a problem even exists! The irony is that Obama has had 3 years now - he has had a choice in how to reverse these policies and yet, surprisingly enough he's done little.

    Did you miss the fact that the Democrats in the Senate voted against Obama's budget?