Actually, it didn't. This is a classic lie: stimulus spending enacted immediately after Obama took office in 2009 was attributed to Bush, because it was in the last fiscal year that BEGAN under Bush.
Bush did initiate TARP, but that was mostly paid back in full with interest, reducing the deficit in later years. However, about $10B stolen from TARP and given to GM was never paid back.
Indeed Barack Obama is a fraud, s hustler and liar yet defending/excusing Bush on spending is a fool’s errand.
Bush is the core reason we have Obama as he was the catalyst for the Tea Party. Anyone who doesn’t grasp that cold reality is delusional. Bush’s record along w/a complicit R Congress; on spending and government growth was beyond reckless.
“Bush did initiate TARP, but that was mostly paid back in full with interest, reducing the deficit in later years.”
I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure the left used TARP + the regular deficit to claim that Bush left Obama a trillion dollar deficit. If TARP were not instituted, the deficit would have been around $400B. Certainly not good, but not anywhere near $1T.
Now, as many have pointed out, TARP was a loan, not an entitlement program. However, it was applied to Bush’s final budget. Now, around that time, the Senate led by Dingy “Treadmill Eye” Harry and the House led by Pelosi seemed to have problems passing a budget.
As a result, Bush’s final budget was used in the years thereafter (which resulted in an additional $1T worth of deficit spending on top of the already sickening deficit spending ... Porkulus was another disaster that, I think, was used against Bush). This gave the Dems cover for all of the money they were blowing as they attributed the spending to Bush.
I can’t look up everything right now, but I believe that is what the Dems were doing to keep their pockets lined during the early days of his majesty’s reign of pain. Any decrease in the annual budget has been due to TARP paybacks, the spending cuts demanded by Republicans, and anemic economic growth (which Obama fought tooth and nail, but, of course, takes credit for any deficit reductions).
As for GM, it wasn’t a “GM” bailout ... it was a bailout for the UAW. The bailout did nothing to fix GM. It only kept the UAW in control of GM. No underlying problems have been fixed. They should have let GM collapse. Their assets would have fallen into more capable hands.
There certainly would have been short term pain as job loss would have been high, but many, if not all of those employees would have been hired by the new companies that would have formed from the ashes of GM.
Instead, Obama did everything he could to retard progress so that his buddies at the UAW could maintain their lavish lifestyles ripping off the GM employees and company at large.
Actually the economy follows a 2 year lag of who controls Congress. The Uni party though, may be changing the history on that to steady decline.