It's Bush's fault and other political fables

teapartysamurai

Gold Member
Mar 27, 2010
20,056
2,562
290
President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.


The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.
Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

More here: Thomas Sowell

I'm waiting for the first liberal to say this columnist is a racist! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sowell is quite correct. From Obama on down, their only excuse for their disasterous policies has been "it's Bush's fault."

That might work for the first few months of a new admin, but going on into a midterm it begins to wear extremely thin.

Further, the truth is, Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007. While the good times were under the purse strings of the Republicans.

Both parties have a lot of faults, but the results of each in office speak loudly enough on their own.
 
It's true.
It omits the idea that the GOP also participated in a spending binge and lost credibility with voters over it.
But other than that, the Dums are the big spenders. And if Obama is still campaigning on the idea he's going to clean up the mess, then it's his own mess he better clean up.
 
President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

Clinton gets blamed for everything....................

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.


Oh Yes! That works for me!!!


No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.


Oh thank gawd Obama didn't do it!!!!

Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

When did they have 2/3rds of vote in Congress to have this "control?" Hmmm?


The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

It is a good thing Clinton submitted those budgets that ended up in the House.


The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Oh there you go again, Blame Bush.............


Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

Yep, two unpaid wars & tax cuts tend to do that.

Sowell is quite correct. From Obama on down, their only excuse for their disasterous policies has been "it's Bush's fault."

That might work for the first few months of a new admin, but going on into a midterm it begins to wear extremely thin.

But it sells, and will continue to sell until the Bush debts are paid off to China.


Further, the truth is, Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007. While the good times were under the purse strings of the Republicans.

Both parties have a lot of faults, but the results of each in office speak loudly enough on their own.

You keep saying control, but that just isn't so. It takes 2/3rds to have control.
 
It's true.
It omits the idea that the GOP also participated in a spending binge and lost credibility with voters over it.
But other than that, the Dums are the big spenders. And if Obama is still campaigning on the idea he's going to clean up the mess, then it's his own mess he better clean up.

McCain deliberately pushed the Republicans into becoming RINOs. Especially with his Amnesty deal for illegal aliens.

It was pretty obvious the RINO, Blue Blood, old style Rockefeller Republicans were trying to push out the conservatives, and go back to their old style RINO existence.

This met it heighth with McCain running for president. It failed. With the rise of the Tea Party several of the Rino type Republicans saw their demise in the primaries.

It will take more than one election, but relegating the Rockefeller Republican to the dustbin of history is something conservatives need to push.
 
President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.

Clinton gets blamed for everything....................

Oh Yes! That works for me!!!

Oh thank gawd Obama didn't do it!!!!

When did they have 2/3rds of vote in Congress to have this "control?" Hmmm?

It is a good thing Clinton submitted those budgets that ended up in the House.

Oh there you go again, Blame Bush.............

Yep, two unpaid wars & tax cuts tend to do that.

But it sells, and will continue to sell until the Bush debts are paid off to China.

Further, the truth is, Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007. While the good times were under the purse strings of the Republicans.

Both parties have a lot of faults, but the results of each in office speak loudly enough on their own.

You keep saying control, but that just isn't so. It takes 2/3rds to have control.

That's only true for overrides and other votes of that magnitude.

But the idea that any party needs 2/3's to control ignores the RINO republicans that often vote with Democrats (LIKE MCCAIN! :mad: ).

All you need is to pick off enough from either party to go with you.

Plus, liberals keep wanting to spread this lie that "Bush did it too." In other words Bush blamed Clinton for his problems, so why can't Obama do the same for Bush?

Only problem is, YOU CAN'T GIVE ME ONE QUOTE OF BUSH EVER DOING THAT!

The fact is Bush did his UTMOST NOT to blame Clinton for ANYTHING. Even to covering up the destruction made by departing Clinonites who pulled the W's off typewriters.

No, sorry. You can't lie over what really happened which was Bush's "new tone." He left in MANY Clinton cronies (which he came later to regret or he should have) and tried to bring Democrats into the fold even having Ted Kennedy write the education bill.

This is the typical tactic liberals do when they can't defend their own. The, "they all do it" tactic.

Thus, "sure Obama blames Bush, but Bush blamed Clinton."

Only the actual history is too recent for that lie to hold. I'm still waiting for quotes of a Bush speech blaming Clinton for anything.

Now, you will hear the usual attacks, vented spleens of accusations of "trolling" from liberals, which is their cute way of saying they know I've busted their lies again, and there isn't much they can do about it.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.


The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.
Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

More here: Thomas Sowell

I'm waiting for the first liberal to say this columnist is a racist! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sowell is quite correct. From Obama on down, their only excuse for their disasterous policies has been "it's Bush's fault."

That might work for the first few months of a new admin, but going on into a midterm it begins to wear extremely thin.

Further, the truth is, Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007. While the good times were under the purse strings of the Republicans.

Both parties have a lot of faults, but the results of each in office speak loudly enough on their own.

.....But, when it comes to THOROUGHLY breakin'-the-bank, no one's done the job like Daddy's Lil' Dumbya!!

:clap2:
 
President Barack Obama boldly proclaims, "The buck stops here!" But, whenever his policies are criticized, he acts as if the buck stopped with George W. Bush.


The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills but Senator Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.
Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.

More here: Thomas Sowell

I'm waiting for the first liberal to say this columnist is a racist! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sowell is quite correct. From Obama on down, their only excuse for their disasterous policies has been "it's Bush's fault."

That might work for the first few months of a new admin, but going on into a midterm it begins to wear extremely thin.

Further, the truth is, Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007. While the good times were under the purse strings of the Republicans.

Both parties have a lot of faults, but the results of each in office speak loudly enough on their own.

.....But, when it comes to THOROUGHLY breakin'-the-bank, no one's done the job like Daddy's Lil' Dumbya!!


:clap2:

That's idiotic! Obama spent twice over IN FOUR MONTHS, what Bush did in SEVEN YEARS OF IRAQ!

There is no way you could support that with the real numbers!

It wasn't Bush that raised the debt ceiling to the trillions, it was Obama!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
More here: Thomas Sowell

I'm waiting for the first liberal to say this columnist is a racist! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sowell is quite correct. From Obama on down, their only excuse for their disasterous policies has been "it's Bush's fault."

That might work for the first few months of a new admin, but going on into a midterm it begins to wear extremely thin.

Further, the truth is, Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007. While the good times were under the purse strings of the Republicans.

Both parties have a lot of faults, but the results of each in office speak loudly enough on their own.

.....But, when it comes to THOROUGHLY breakin'-the-bank, no one's done the job like Daddy's Lil' Dumbya!!


:clap2:

That's idiotic! Obama spent twice over IN FOUR MONTHS, what Bush did in SEVEN YEARS OF IRAQ!

There is no way you could support that with the real numbers!

It wasn't Bush that raised the debt ceiling to the trillions, it was Obama!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah.....we've heard....we've heard......

:rolleyes:
 
Obviously the problems we are facing are no more ENTIRELY Bush II's fault then they are ENTIRELY Obama's, fault.

But this thread starts out, I think begging a question

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

Of COURSE Obama inherented an economy in shambles.

And of course, Bush II's policies contributed to that mess.

NObody I know is dense enought to imagine that Bush II was entirely responble for this economy, but two land in Asia and tax cuts to billionaires certainly play their part in the overall mess we're in and those do have to be laid at the feet of the Bush II admin and his supporters in Congress.

Including, I note, MANY democrats.

This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.
 
No.
"Tax cuts to billionaires (how many billionaires are there in AMerica??)" did not create the present situation.
ALL presidents inherit a situation from their predecessors. Clinton inherited a particularly good one. Bush an especially bad one. Obama a sort of bad one.
The issue is what they do after that. Bush responded with the War on Terror and a very succesful economic program that brought the second longest peacetime expansion since WW2. Obama responded by blaming Bush for all his troubles and a failed stimulus program that he now wants to double down on.
At the root it's leadership: You either take responsibility for your own policies or you don't. We see which way Obama has gone.
 
This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.

Yep. Folks like to brush under the rug the unfunded Prescription Drug Plan, the brainchild of DeLay, Frist, and Bush. They also like to ignore the pork producing K-Street manipulations, which were absolutely corrupt, and which were again the brainchild of DeLay, Frist, and Bush. They like to forget that Bush couldn't find his veto pen for YEARS as DeLay and Frist were running up the debt. They also hate to mention that the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush, who opted not to veto such spending. And never mind two wars paid for out of discretionary spending with absolutely no plan to pay for it.

Democrats have of course contributed since coming to office. Instead of starting with the Infrastructure plan that Obama is now pursuing (which is a very GOOD use of money and a very GOOD way to produce jobs) they started out with more bailouts and welfare for the rich. Should they lose the House in Novemember, it will be because they deserve to.

But I'm not convinced the GOP deserves a shot at the House yet either. Under DeLay, Frist, and Bush the GOP made it clear that they are the party of borrow and spend which even more economically irresponsible than tax and spend. Given the choice between the two, I'll pick a party of tax and spend every day over a party of borrow and spend.
 
I'm going to add this:

What's with the desperate attempts to save George W. Bush's reputation?

His spending, his failures on immigration and port and border security, his early failures in Iraq, his near abandonment of Afghanistan, his contributions to the debt, etc. should be enough to make even the most dyed in the wool Republican partisan blush, and yet we've got people that claim to be "Conservatives", but who are in reality unabashed GOP Partisans, falling all over themselves to save his reputation.

Or are they being paid to do it? I know that paid posters on political boards are hardly rare.
 
Weird how some think history appears in this instant only. It would be more relevant to say it is republican or conservative republican failure. 'Fault' really lies with the stooges and tools who vote for them. Consider Coolidge/Hoover GD failure, Nixon/Ford stagflation, Reagan/Bush S&L Scandal and bailout, Bush Jr complete failure in all areas, and the only thing that should amaze anyone is the short memories of Americans and the power of partisan rhetoric and propaganda on the deaf dumb and blind voters.

This from a thread I have been working on:

- Our first republican commentator:

"The magnitude of the fiscal wreckage and the severity of the economic dangers that resulted are too great to permit such an easy verdict. In the larger scheme of democratic fact and economic reality there lies a harsher judgment. In fact, it was the basic assumptions and fiscal architecture of the Reagan Revolution itself which first introduced the folly that now envelops our economic governance.

The Reagan Revolution was radical, imprudent, and arrogant. It defied the settled consensus of professional politicians and economists on its two central assumptions. It mistakenly presumed that a handful of ideologue were right and all the politicians were wrong about what the American people wanted from government." David Stockman, The triumph of politics

- Our second republican, a Reagan republican:

'The Mother of All Messes' By Paul Craig Roberts

"Republicans are sending around the Internet a photo of a cute little boy whose T-shirt reads: “The mess in my pants is nothing compared to the mess Democrats will make of this country if they win Nov. 2nd.”

One can only wonder at the insouciance of this message. Are Republicans unaware of the amazing mess the Bush regime has made?

It is impossible to imagine a bigger mess. Republicans have us at war in two countries as a result of Republican lies and deceptions, and we might be in two more wars--Iran and Pakistan--by November. We have alienated the entire Muslim world and most of the rest.

The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the euro, and the once mighty dollar is losing its reserve currency role.

The Republicans’ policies have driven up the price of both oil and gold by 400%.

Inflation is in double digits. Employment is falling.

The Republican economy in the 21st century has been unable to create net new jobs for Americans except for low wage domestic services such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks and hospital orderlies." Paul Craig Roberts: The Mother of All Messes

- and more to come.
 
This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.

Yep. Folks like to brush under the rug the unfunded Prescription Drug Plan, the brainchild of DeLay, Frist, and Bush. They also like to ignore the pork producing K-Street manipulations, which were absolutely corrupt, and which were again the brainchild of DeLay, Frist, and Bush. They like to forget that Bush couldn't find his veto pen for YEARS as DeLay and Frist were running up the debt. They also hate to mention that the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush, who opted not to veto such spending. And never mind two wars paid for out of discretionary spending with absolutely no plan to pay for it.

Democrats have of course contributed since coming to office. Instead of starting with the Infrastructure plan that Obama is now pursuing (which is a very GOOD use of money and a very GOOD way to produce jobs) they started out with more bailouts and welfare for the rich. Should they lose the House in Novemember, it will be because they deserve to.

But I'm not convinced the GOP deserves a shot at the House yet either. Under DeLay, Frist, and Bush the GOP made it clear that they are the party of borrow and spend which even more economically irresponsible than tax and spend. Given the choice between the two, I'll pick a party of tax and spend every day over a party of borrow and spend.

BOOOSHHHH. However bad Obama and the Democrats are...BOOOSSSHHHHH.

Plenty of people objected to Bush's policies on steel tariffs, prescription drug benefits, and his failure to wield the veto pen when he should have.

But every one of those bad policies has been matched and then some by Team Obama and teh Democrats. Bush was bipartisan and tried to work with the Dems after they won control. This is the result.
The GOP has learned its lesson (we hope). The failure of some mainline party candidates should attest to that. Certainly allowing the Dums another 2 years to screw things up even more thoroughly is sheer insanity.
 
.....But, when it comes to THOROUGHLY breakin'-the-bank, no one's done the job like Daddy's Lil' Dumbya!!


:clap2:

That's idiotic! Obama spent twice over IN FOUR MONTHS, what Bush did in SEVEN YEARS OF IRAQ!

There is no way you could support that with the real numbers!

It wasn't Bush that raised the debt ceiling to the trillions, it was Obama!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yeah.....we've heard....we've heard......​


:rolleyes:

Media Matters! Bwahahaaa! Oh that's an "unimpeachable" source! :lol::lol::lol:

President Obama Signs Law Raising Public Debt Limit from $12.4 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion

Behind closed doors and with no cameras present, President Obama signed into law Friday afternoon the bill raising the public debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

The current national debt is $12.3 trillion. Check out the National Debt Clock, which tells you your share of that -- roughly $40,000 per citizen, $113,000 per taxpayer.

President Obama Signs Law Raising Public Debt Limit from $12.4 Trillion to $14.3 Trillion - Political Punch

Obama Signs Bill to Raise Debt Limit - CBS News

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012800522.html

May I point out THIS IS THE SECOND TIME DEMOCRATS HAVE SOUGHT TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING UNDER OBAMA!!!!!!! It was also raised in Feb 2009!

In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.

“We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told POLITICO Wednesday. And the Maryland Democrat confirmed that the anticipated increase could be as high as $1.8 trillion — nearly twice what had been assumed in last spring’s budget resolution for the 2010 fiscal year.

Democrats to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

You were saying???????

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Last edited:
Obviously the problems we are facing are no more ENTIRELY Bush II's fault then they are ENTIRELY Obama's, fault.

But this thread starts out, I think begging a question

The party line that we are likely to be hearing from now until the November elections is that Obama "inherited" the big federal budget deficits and that he has to "clean up the mess" left in the economy by the Republicans. This may convince those who want to be convinced, but it will not stand up under scrutiny.

Of COURSE Obama inherented an economy in shambles.

And of course, Bush II's policies contributed to that mess.

NObody I know is dense enought to imagine that Bush II was entirely responble for this economy, but two land in Asia and tax cuts to billionaires certainly play their part in the overall mess we're in and those do have to be laid at the feet of the Bush II admin and his supporters in Congress.

Including, I note, MANY democrats.

This economic mess is the result of bipartisan policies.

Oh for crying OUT LOUD?

Not Obama's fault? Obama has been in on these destructive policies whether he was a Senator or the president.

You can't going to be able to sell that line!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
The banking bailout occurred under Bush. Obama is stuck, make that revels, in Bush's imperial paradigm. This is what empires do and it matters not if it is republican or Democrat. You have to inflate, borrow and tax to run the warfare state. There are no free lunches. So if you want the U.S. to police the world, such is the cost of pax Americana. The problems we have are imperial problems not Democrat or Republican.

I hate to break it to you, but OBAMA VOTED for that bailout.

Whether he was a Senator at the time or president, he not only as agreed to these policies he has continued them on steroids.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top