Skip to comments.For Some Democrats, Bush Is To Blame-Forever And Ever
Posted on 05/22/2012 9:07:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
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 10 years," writes the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in a newly released report. 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."
Is that really the case? Is the war in Iraq, which ran from 2003 to 2011, really going to drive the deficit in 2019? And what about Afghanistan, with American forces on schedule to leave? "It's ludicrous," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "We are out of Iraq and nearly out of Afghanistan. And under current law we are scheduled to take another $500 billion out of defense."
Holtz-Eakin also notes that the center blames the 2009 deficit on Bush even though that year includes the $821 billion stimulus bill. "There was a LOT of activity in the final nine months (of fiscal 2009) that had nothing to do with Bush," he says. In addition, the 2009 deficit included two massive one-time-only expenditures: the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But spending did not plunge after that. "The fact that spending remains as high as (2009's) means that Obama has replaced temporary spending with persistent spending," says Holtz-Eakin.
The center also insists Obama's signature achievement, national health care, will reduce the deficit in coming years, despite new estimates it will cost far more than originally claimed.
And then there are the Bush tax cuts, under which deficits actually shrank in the 2000s. With those cuts fully in place, the federal budget deficit went from $413 billion in 2004 to $318 billion in 2005 to $248 billion in 2006 to $162 billion in 2007. (The deficit climbed in 2008, to $410 billion, but that was caused by the economic downturn.) Why is the center so confident that those cuts, if they remain in place, will blow up the deficit in 2019?
And by the way, President Obama himself supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, with the exception of lower rates for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000. If Obama gets his way, and the tax cuts remain in place except for those in the upper bracket, will George W. Bush still be driving the deficit in 2019?
The new blame-Bush-forever argument shows once and for all that the Democrats' Bush obsession has raced completely out of control. Barack Obama has been president nearly four years and is asking for four more. The election is about him.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
The “mess Obama inherited from Bush” included $1.86 gas and 5.2% unemployment.
Please, bring back that mess to replace the mess Romney stands most likely to inherit.
BTW, Romney sucks. A lot. See tag for more information.
This tells the story, why Bush was so 'bad' at the end of his term. Dont just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.
The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... The DAY The DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
And for some FReepers.
The funny thing is that they are cutting one of the ONLY things that the Federal Government is suppose to do, have a military.
I don't want the government to give me healthcare, I don't want them to give me social security, I don't want them to run education, energy, labor (WTH?), agriculture, housing or any of the other stuff that they insist on doing to me.
They can keep State, Treasury, Justice (although most of the alphabet departments have GOT to go), War (let us call it what it IS) and Commerce. Dump the rest. They in no way can be justified as anything the Federal Government should be involved with.
They are suppose to; deal with foreign governments (state), coin money (treasury), enforce justice across state lines (justice), provide for the common defense (war), issue patents and copyrights (commerce). Everything else should go.
Their main job is to protect me from a missile that could land on my coconut.
Under O-bummer that is one thing that they are determined to do a lousy job at.
even if Bush is responsible for making the economy dip in the last year or so of his administration....
....it does not hold a candle to what ‘Mr. Trillions’ and his Marxist regime did to try to ‘fix’ it....
Let’s hope Romney uses these facts in his campaign...
IIRC, they had the Senate two years before that....
so all you pub haters out there, just remember who really ruled DC....
we've got a steep hill to climb...Romney is no tea party.....but he's a hell of a lot better than the HELL party....
keep working to get more frugally conservative congresscritters in office...start locally and work your way up....its the only way...
Good points all.
Yep - I've run across a few who have real Bush-Derangement Syndrome. If they could turn that anguished hate against the Left, they might do some good, but they probably need meds to help them cope...
If you agree with this logic, then all credit goes to Obama’s mother and father.
Thank you, very few people realize these facts. Under Nancy Pelosi’s leadership from 1/07 till she left in 12/10 congress added 6 Trillion in new debt.