Obama, Obushma, hey, what's the difference?

American Thinker ^ | April 13, 2009 | James Lewis

[piasa]

I’m fuzzy on Harriet Miers other than I know Frum opposed her over some personal spat. I thought it was an odd selection but don’t recall what she was notorious for.

[WOSG]

Harriet Miers was notorious for not having the experience or the conservative bona fides for being a good, reliably conservative SCOTUS pick. It was Bush picking one his loyal underlings, a dangerous way to pick SCOTUS nominees.

It created a breach of trust in conservatives towards bush that increased willingness to critique him.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It’s all working out fine for GS, though.

Although I believe Goldman also got some "extra" bailout money indirectly via AIG. When I see the DJIA going up, I wonder what will happen when the trillions in bailouts stop.

[nathanbedford]

I believe that if one thinks about your question, what about Obama and Islam, in terms of the question, why does the left frustrate every antiterrorism effort when everything militant Islam stands for is so inimical to leftist doctrine? In other words, if sharia law is imposed, leftists will be jailed or even beheaded on a wholesale basis. So why do they frustrate the war against militant Islam?

I think there are a number of reasons for the left to behave in a manner seemingly contrary to its own interests when it courts this risk. How an individual leftist will behave depends on how far along a spectrum of leftism he is placed. If one is a truly committed leftist Revolutionary he welcomes the chaos which comes from terrorism as opportunity to shake off the hated slavery of the American system. He is sure that he is smart enough to defeat Islam once America is out of the way. Indeed, he cannot understand why Islam, a product of superstition and Islamic terrorism, a result of frustration because of what America has done to it, would want to even exist when those causes are removed and he offers secular and temporal salvation.

A leftist who is not nearly as committed as our hypothetical revolutionary might just be reflexively against America without thinking through the implications of a victory by the Islamic fascists. Most probably just travel along. Many liberals fall somewhere in between on the leftist spectrum. Where would you put Obama?

I've written a long piece on this and I speculate that how Obama reacts to Muslim terrorism, indeed to the Muslim world, depends on his view of this own power. Does he already have it or does he need Muslim terrorism to wage war against in order to get it?

Which takes me back to my original point in my original reply which is that Obama might be quite aggressive militarily if he thinks the threat is to his own power rather than a way of enhancing it.

[calcowgirl]

Although I believe Goldman also got some "extra" bailout money indirectly via AIG.

Yeah... a whole LOT of bailout money. My comment was made tongue in cheek. ;-)

When I see the DJIA going up, I wonder what will happen when the trillions in bailouts stop.

Panic, uncertainty, and the cycle begins again. It is why every step of this bailout has been so stupid.

[calcowgirl]

I think your chart makes one of sickoflibs’ point. Here are the Heritage Foundation comments that accompany their posting of the same chart:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending.

Riedl details:

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thanks ccg. I think we were getting off the point arguing about what talk show hosts said.

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion......

[djsherin]

***“It’s been going on all year. The strong recovery got no respect during the presidential election, as John Kerry and his minions pounded President Bush for presiding over a “Hoover” economy. Kerry said Bush failed to create new jobs, even though traditional measures of economic health have been advancing nicely for two years. The media largely reported it the Kerry way.***

I’m not saying the economy didn’t look good and I’m certainly not saying the Democrats approach would have been better, but that doesn’t mean the fundamentals were strong.

***The most comprehensive measure of economic health — inflation-adjusted gross domestic product — has been trending steadily around 4 percent for the last two years. This is half a percent above the nation’s 3.5 percent long-run growth trend.***

And now what is it? It’s not as if the long term average didn’t also have periods of higher growth followed by lower growth averaging at 3.5%. I’m sure you could find many periods that had higher than average growth for 2 years. GDP by itself doesn’t tell me much anyway. If everyone suddenly went into heavy debt and spent all their money as fast as they could, GDP would rise, but would this constitute economic health?

***Then there’s the 2 percent inflation trend, a stat never mentioned during the campaign but a long stone’s throw from Jimmy Carter’s 15 percent rate of price increases.***

I believe the government seriously understates inflation. Partially because prices sure didn’t rise that slowly for me wherever I went. Besides, inflation isn’t really in the president’s sphere of influence unless he can somehow manipulate the fed.

***Big media let Kerry get away with murder as he obsessed over non-farm payroll jobs, which were slow to recover but have in fact expanded by over 2 million in the past eighteen months. Nonetheless, the other major jobs report — the household survey — went virtually unreported.***

You don’t need to convince me that Kerry and the media suck.

***Then there’s the positive impact of reduced marginal tax rates. The Bush supply-side tax cuts were implemented early in 2003, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, a burst technology bubble, and the corporate scandals. They caused an immediate jolt to the economy, as both employment and investment responded to a badly-needed dose of economic incentives. By taxing work and investment less, the economy got much more of both.***

What got us out of the tech bubble recession (or more properly, what inflated the housing bubble to avoid the more severe recession we should have had in 2000ish) was the fed’s monetary policy. I’m not saying tax cuts are a bad thing, but they don’t have the same effect as monetary policy. Note I’m not in favor of monetary policy because all it does is put one recession and sew the seeds for the next, a drug addict getting another fix rather than taking the pain and then doing something productive that will bring him sustainable happiness. You can always get high from shooting up (injecting credit), but it doesn’t mean you’re healthy.

Personally I’ve never seen the huge appeal to cutting taxes without cutting spending. We’re told that we grow our way out of the deficits we create, but have we? I agree with you that increased spending is worse than lowering taxes, but the government is still taking in the same amount of money if you cut taxes and not spending. That means there’s still the same amount of money being sucked out of the economy for unproductive government projects that can’t be used by the private sector, and a future obligation to pay, plus interest.

***Consumer spending jumped from 2.8 percent to 3.9 percent.***

Is this necessarily a good thing? With total public and private debt approaching something like 360% and an extremely low savings rate, it would seem to me that we need to spend less. Yes this would cause slowdown but that’s what happens when you live beyond your means. The current recession is the market’s way of forcing us to do that. Economies should be based on savings, with consumption following production. What I don’t like about GDP is that it’s measured by spending. I think that has dangerous implications.

I’m not saying it’s all GWB’s fault or that the Democrats would have done better. I tend also not to give president’s credit for good and bad economies, as much of economic booms and busts are generated by the fed. I remember seeing a discussion once on another forum where the poster said that GDP growth under Democrats this century was higher than that under Republicans and that therefore we should always use Democratic strategies. I think this totally misses the point that the economy is not managed by the president, and ultimately, it’s Congresses legislation even if it comes at the president’s request. Just my 2 cents.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I am being honest. you are being self-deluded if you think Obama’s socialist is merely ‘more of the same’. It’s a whole new leftwing ballgame.”

It was you so called conservatives that broke the piggy bank and told the public government was free. So you laid the ground for Pelosi/Obama, now you cry “But they are worse than us”, it's pathetic with predictable results, disaster.

Your argument that creating big deficits for spending and increased government that YOU (Levin, Hannity) wanted was OK, but you all disagree with Bush social/Pork/liberal spending he needed to get re-elected 2004, when you all cheered (and still cheer) the fact that IT WORKED he got re-elected, makes you so called conservatives is silly. This is why republicans lost two elections and have nothing to stand on now.

I hope Hannity and Levin avoid the Tea parties.

[sickoflibs]

I know I went down many logical paths, but WOSG is an typical example of Bush bots everywhere I run into, and elected republicans in general (not all) . They have a million excuses for why Bush ran deficits, if that doesn't sell they claimed democrats forced him, if that doesn't sell they claim they disagree with certain programs Bush passed to get re-elected (but celebrate the effect, the fact that it worked.)

None of this would bother me as much if it didn't all end in disaster.

[WOSG]

WOSG: ”I am being honest. you are being self-deluded if you think Obama’s socialist is merely ‘more of the same’. It’s a whole new leftwing ballgame.”

Sickoflibs: “It was you so called conservatives that broke the piggy bank ...”

As Reagan would say: There you go again.

Yes, there was fiscal irresponsibility going on prior to Obama in the Bush era. But you continue to blame conservatives who OPPOSED big spending AT THE TIME, instead of blaming the Congressional RINOs and Dems who actually passed the big spending.

You keep repeating the same phony strawman arguments, devoid of content and contrary to the facts that went on. You continue to make claims without precise quotes (because three are none to support your claims). So I will inject facts to make it clear who did right and who did wrong in the Bush era...

- The guilty parties included Bush administration and RINOs and Democrats in Congress who passed the spending bills that
- It did NOT include the conservatives, like Rush and Levin and others, who protested AGAINST those bills that busted the budget or violated conservative principles
- Conservative Republicans, conservative opinion makers and conservative think tanks openly and publicly broke with Bush on spending and immigration

Now look at the timeline on for example the 2002 Daschle Farm bill:
- 2002: CONSERVATIVES LAMENT THE SPENDING SPREE BILLS FROM THE DASCHLE SENATE, CRITICIZING BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS - Here is NRO, openly breaking with Bush on big spending, Steven Moore using hte ‘drunken sailor’ analogy even then:
http://www.nationalreview.com/moore/moore051702.asp
“The spending spree has worsened now that Tom Daschle is running the Senate and that prince of pork, Robert C. Byrd, is ruling the appropriations process. But one only need look at the vote on the Farm Bill — a bill that will distribute million-dollar welfare checks to America’s wealthiest farm businesses — to see that the pro-spending virus endemic in the Democratic party has spread to the GOP.

I’ve covered federal budget issues for nearly two decades. If the Farm Bill wasn’t the most fiscally rancid legislation I have seen, it’s certainly in the top three.”

- Early 2002 - BUSH WANTED TO DEFER ON FARM BILL
Ag Secretary Veneman opposes the Farm bill in Congress, suggested deferring it.
“September 19: Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman criticizes traditional farm policy, calls for a shift from commodity subsidies to conservation measures”
- SEN GRASSLEY WANTED TO REIN IN THE SUBSIDY LEVELS
“Rein in ag subsidies, Grassley says The Iowa senator, directly challenging Democrats on the mired farm bill, wants it amended to lower the annual cap in a bid to distribute funds more evenly., Omaha World Herald (Nebraska), January 17, 2002, Thursday, IOWA EDITION, Pg. 1B”
- THE DASCHLE FARM BILL WAS SAVED BY SUPPORT FROM LIBERAL DEMOCRATS - GOVT MONEY FOR ... EGGPLANTS!
“The emergence of the Eggplant Caucus, so named for a major New Jersey crop, was a major factor in the passage of the bill.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) saw the opportunity for what he considered to be a more fair and equitable farm bill, and sought to unite over 20 senators from states with less powerful farming interests in support of subsidies for specialty crops and conservation. Active members of the Eggplant Caucus included:

* Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
* Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
* Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_Security_and_Rural_Investment_Act_of_2002

- may 2002 DASCHLE PASSED THE FARM BILL -ONE THIRD OF REPUBLICANS, THE TRUE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES, VOTE AGAINST IT; LOG ROLLING BIG SPENDERS IN BOTH PARTIES VOTE FOR IT

- CONSERVATIVE GROUP HERITAGE FOUNDATION URGES VETO OF BIG SPENDING BY DASCHLE / HASTERT CONGRESS
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1566.cfm

- may 2002 LIMBAUGH CRITICIZES DASCHLE FARM BILL
- RIGHT AFTER THE FARM BILL, DEMOCRATS DEMANDED MORE MONEY, RIGHT AFTER THE MONEY WAS ALLOCATED, THEY BLAMED BUSH FOR NOT SPENDING ENOUGH!!!
- Daschle’s budget busting Farm Bill.
http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/2004/07/the_farm_bill.html
“In a statement this week, the Bush Administration said that they would not support providing any additional funds for agriculture – including natural disasters such as droughts and floods – for this year or any year until the new farm bill expires in 2007. The Administration said any natural disaster funding should come from the newly-passed farm bill.

“Each day that passes without significant rain in South Dakota means more farmers and ranchers are facing economic disaster. And when farm income declines, our communities lose business and face economic ruin. For this Administration to say that drought assistance must come from farm commodity program spending is like saying that funding to fight the war on terrorism should come from existing Defense Department funding or that money to fight forest fires raging in the western United States should come from existing Forest Service budgets. Emergencies and disasters, by their very definition, are unplanned and therefore require special funding,” Johnson said.”

- 2004 - DEMOCRATS ACCUSE BUSH OF NOT SPENDING ENOUGH: “In 2004 the Democrats continue to play politics with the Farm Bill. Johnson takes credit for funding the Farm Bill provides to Internet providers (not exactly plow jocks), as Daschle blames Bush and Thune for the lack of assistance the drought stricken ranchers are in great need of. “

- THE BEAT GOES ON - PELOSI PUSHING MORE SUBSIDIES
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/26/MNG9AR6V6S1.DTL&type=printable

... and so it goes.

Time and time again, we saw the same script: Bush compromised with Democrats on big-spending bills, the Democrats ‘took credit’ for the big spending benefits, then blasted Bush for NOT SPENDING ENOUGH, at the same time hypocritically lamenting the deficits and blaming Bush for that too. This happened on NCLB (Dems saying it ‘wasnt fully funded’ even while Dept of Ed spending doubled) on Medicare (Dems calling for $1 trillion in more spending on drug benefit) on farm bill (Dems busted it even more in 2007) on SCHIP (Dems passed a TRIPLING OF SPENDING on this in January, vetoed by Bush in 2007 but signed by Obama in Jan).

In the end, Bush’s triangulation was a political failure that was also fiscally irresponsible. Blame Rove, Bush and big-spending RINOs for that. Blame also the hypocritical Democrats for massive spending then turning around and demanding MORE, pretending falsely that Bush was somehow a budget miser.

Blaming conservatives for this is opposite of the truth. Conservatives opposed Bush and the big-spenders at the time. It is leaving the guilty off scot free (Democrats like Daschle and Robert Byrd, RINOs like Snowe, Specter, bigspending Repubs like Ted Stevens, etc. ) while accusing the innocent (conservatives talk show hosts, ‘conservatives’ in general) etc. of being complicit in something they OPPOSED at the time.

Many conservative were properly supportive of Bush for forthrightly fighting the Global War on Terror. They (and we all) have nothing to apologize for on that score. Supporting a President for doing many things right is not a bad thing. What conservatives can be proud of is the fact that they were not lemmings and (contrary to your attempt to rewrite history) forthrightly opposed Bush when he deviated from conservative policies, on spending, on immigration, on dubai ports, on stimulus.

“Nothing to stand on?” - That’s a rather silly comment. So long as you are speaking truth and making sensible proposals, you are on solid ground. Like this GOP alternative - very good and very solid:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2377.cfm

[sickoflibs]

Checkmate :

WHEN DICK CHENEY SAID, “ Deficits don't matter,” economists took that as proof of the economic illiteracy of the Bush administration. But it turns out there is a case to be made that Cheney was onto something...clip....

On the political level, treating deficits as a non-issue also proved a successful strategy. After all, despite the torrent of red ink that splashed across the national budgets during his first term, George W. Bush was reelected by a substantial margin. ”

Weekly Standard : Do Deficits Matter?..(from 2005,Cheney says no, re-elected for it )

[WOSG]

“Thanks ccg. I think we were getting off the point arguing about what talk show hosts said. “

But that’s EXACTLY were sickoflibs is going wrong. Nobody here is arguing that there wasnt overspending.I was disputing the false claim that conservatives agreed to it. I am trying to correct the record on who was responsible. In fact, conservatives were opposing Bush and big-spenders in Congress at the time on this issue.

My point: Big spending RINOs, Liberal Democrats and pork-barrellers from both parties are the ones largely responsible for excessive spending. The proof is in the pudding of the roll call votes and the positions taken. The Democrats throughout 2000-2008 up until today have played of game of extreme fiscal irresponsibility, to get credit for their pandering while putting blame on Bush for both not spending enough (!!) and for the deficits that result from overspending.

Here is the roll call vote on the Daschle Farm bill of 2002. One of many vote where Senators and Congresscritters had to take a stand on spending. The people to hold responsible are the people who voted “AYE” on votes like this... not talk radio show hosts who were lamenting the over-spending at the time.

And note - Bush failed to veto, but he wasnt the one stuffing the bills with pork. It was big-spending House and Senate leaders, many of them Democrats who are over-spending and running Congress today, who share the blame. The bulk of the AYE votes for the Daschle Farm bill below were Democrats, although it was a bipartisan pork-barrel for which both sides of aisle share blame.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00103

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs -—64
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs -—35
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Smith (R-NH)
Specter (R-PA)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Not Voting - 1
Helms (R-NC)

[WOSG]

LOL ... Since when was Cheney a talk radio show host? You’ve checkmated yourself. I never exempted the Bush administration from blame, and your failure to find even a single quote to back up the counter-factual claim that conservatives were complicit in Bush’s over-spending is duly noted.

Checkmate indeed. My detailed and accurate history of the Daschle farm bill makes clear that liberal Democrats and big-spending Republicans had Congressional majority at the crucial 2001-2004 timeframe, and it was they, not Marc Levin or Rush or Hannity or anyone else outside-the-beltway, who passed the budget-busting spending bills.

In 2005-2006, the GOP Congress shaped up a little better and spending increases were a lot less.
Then in late 2006, Pelosi and Reid took over and the liberal Democrat run Congress went far beyond any previous Congress in its over-spending habits.

[Cheetahcat]

“And BTW, you do have a very UN-conservative view on tax rate reduction: It reduces the price of Government. Blaming tax cuts for deficits is singing from the Democrat party playbook. ... I repeat: It's a false notion that tax-cutters are responsible or like higher spending /deficits. You can even check the votes - a distinctly DIFFERENT GROUP are voting and did vote for higher spending than for tax reductions. You can verify this by comparing NTU ratings and CAGW (Citizens Against Govt waste). They correlate. Fiscal conservatives like Coburn, DeMint, Rep Flake, Rep Shadegg, Rep Pence voted NO on medicare part D, but have been for lower tax rates. That is consistent fiscal conservatism.”

Here is the problem TOO much verbiage;we have people with the attention span of Gnats and then wonder why they do understand anything said about tax cuts VS Government Spending the concepts have to be made simple to digest and widely understood which they are NOT as exemplified 11/4

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Since when was Cheney a talk radio show host? “

This post showed exactly what I said repeatedly, that so called conservatives, NEWSMAX here (but National Review, your buddies AND YOU!) celebrated the results of Bush/Cheney rapid debt generation, his re-election. Sure afterward they disowned the specific spending they didn't like that appealed to non-'conservatives', which got Bush re-elected. Big deal. Now they claim moral supremecy over democrats on debt?? HA

RE :”Then in late 2006, Pelosi and Reid took over and the liberal Democrat run Congress went far beyond any previous Congress in its over-spending habits”

Really, how many GWB vetos did they over-ride? Total crap, Bush was Obama’s twin.

[metesky]

I heard this morning some crap about getting at the "root causes" of piracy and some bs about sending American aid to the "underpriviledged" area, presumably on the grounds that once they have enough gitas to buy cold soft drinks and color TVs they'll have no incentive to rove the seas in search of prey.

What a pantload, eh?

Given the situation there was no other outcome to this scenario. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps made their bones fighting piracy.

The fraudulent administration had no choice.

If Zero gives any money to these 17th century bucaneers he'll lose (or loose, as some Freepers like to say) whatever small piece of goodwill he gained from the resue effort.

[WOSG]

Oh yes, and let it be noted that you are quoting the Weekly Standard, the journal of record for “Big Govt conservatism” and home to Fred Barnes (cheerleader for Medicare Part D and the Bush-Rove big-Govt conservatism (oxymoron)) and Bill Kristol (pro-amnesty, McCain supporter in 2000 and 2008).

If you want to point out that there were a few cheerleaders outside the administration cheering Bush for his (failed) political strategy to compromise with Daschle, Kennedy and Reid on domestic bills and big over-spending ... there they are at the weakly standard. You just WONT find them on the populist AM band.

See, I am trying to *help* your case ... ;-)

[WOSG]

WOSG: ”Then in late 2006, Pelosi and Reid took over and the liberal Democrat run Congress went far beyond any previous Congress in its over-spending habits”

You: “Really, how many GWB vetos did they over-ride?”

THERE WERE SEVERAL VETOES. On SCHIP, where the Demos wanted to triple the spending and Bush vetoed it, Pelosi/Reid didnt override but waited for Obama to sign. On FY2009 they also waited for Obama to spend an extra $40 billion more than Bush was willing to spend. For several other bills, they got pork-barrel appropriations overrides.

THANKS FOR BASHING BUSH, LETTING PELOSI OFF THE HOOK AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE DEMOCRAT OVER-SPENDERS WHO HAVE RUN CONGRESS SINCE 2007:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/another_day_another_bush_veto.html
- November, 2007 -

President Bush has vetoed another spending bill: A $150.7-billion Labor, Health and Education appropriations bill.

This is the second spending bill that Bush has vetoed for over-spending (he also vetoed a children’s health insurance bill over objections for its extension of benefits). And Congress overrode the president’s veto of the other spending bill, a water resources development act.

Bush signed another appropriations bill, for Defense — with the White House calling it “not a perfect bill, but “essential to deliver these funds to our military in a time of war.’’

But, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said en route to Indiana with the president for a speech about the economy and congressional spending, the vetoed bill provided $10 billion more than the president wanted and included some 2,000 “earmarks’’ — special projects inserted at the behest of individual congressmen.

....

According to the committee, lawmakers rejected proposed cuts that the White House wanted in healthcare access, education, medical research, job training and grants to alleviate poverty and promote economic development. The bill offers a 4.3 percent increase in these programs, $6.2 billion above last year – while the White House proposed to cut $3.6 billion.

“With today’s veto,’’ said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), “the president has shown once again how out of touch and out of step he is with the values of America’s families. Cancer research, investments in our schools, job training, protecting workers, and many other urgent priorities have all fallen victim to a president who squanders billions of dollars in Iraq but is unwilling to invest in America’s future.”

This bill, like the water bill, could inspire another veto override. It passed the House by 274-141, with support from 50 Republicans.

[WOSG]

You are right.

It is far far too easy to just Blame Bush and ignore Democrat big-spending complicity, rather than look at the fact that Congress wrote all the budgets and that there was a big-spending liberal Democrat+RINO majority (bipartisan earmark-corrupted porkbarrelers) writing most of those budgets.

The Democrats in Congress wrote the budgets since 2007 and yet most voters last November didnt even know we had a Democrat majority in Congress! So of course they will blame Republicans if they are too ignorant to know that liberal Democrat Pelosi has been speaker for over 2 years now.