Some rightwingers wonder why libs invoke the memory of GWB when GOPhers complain about the crises currently facing America? They should try being intellectually honest for a change.

While clearly for rightwingers this serves as a viable means of mounting a partisan attack against President Obama,

While clearly for leftwingers, Bush serves as a means of getting the spotlight off of Obama's failures and poor leadership.

FTFY, moder-h8

Who caused Reagans debts - Carter
Who caused Obamas debts - Bush.

Or

Who caused Reagans debts - Reagan
Who caused Obamas debts - Obama.

You can have one or the other.

"You can have one or the other."

Huh? Reagan cut taxes and jacked up military spending. How was that Carter's doing?

And Bush was given surplus budget projections as far as the eye could see, and left deficits as far as the eye could see, including the exploding ones of Medicare and (soon) Social Security. How is that Obama's doing?

Now, the additional spending added by Obama is his alone. But he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and an economy in meltdown.

That 1.3 tril isn't all Bush's, DAn-o...It's the Dem Congress's 1.3 trill. Dems voted FOR it by a margin of 2 to 1 over Repubs. Stop acting like Bush did it all by his lonesome.

For the *TARP*, which pushed it to 1.3T..otherwise, it would have been around 575B

*which, BTW, is still TOO fuckin' much!*

#3 | Posted by andyuhenet

Andy, not quite accurate:

Carter's left debt under a trillion,

Reagan engaged in a massive buildup of the military, had our first trillion dollar budgets and left the national debt at $2.8 Trillion,
Bush 1 at $4.4 Trillion,
Clinton at $5.8 Trillion and
Bush II $11.9 Trillion ($12.8 with TARP).

BTW, $700 Billion of the $1.3 are debt service payments on the national debt, $150 Billion Medicare Part D, and the rest revenue shortfalls from 2 Bush tax cuts an declining revenues caused by the recession.

And Bush was given surplus budget projections as far as the eye could see

Bullshit talking point, but loved by the left. Clinton left off a trillion or so in entitlements, meaning to put those on additional supplemental budget bills. The real story is deficit projections, just like everyone before and since. It's the Executive Branch that spends money. If Obama wanted to he could easily stop spending. Instead he wants "stimulus" bills, Cap-n-trade, health care, etc. He want's to spend like a drunken sailor with a trust fund and blame it all on Bush. And fools like Moder8 will not only allow it, but beg for more. "Please sir, may I have some more?" Except this time they actually get it.

BTW, $700 Billion of the $1.3 are debt service payments on the national debt, $150 Billion Medicare Part D, and the rest revenue shortfalls from 2 Bush tax cuts an declining revenues caused by the recession.

Again more bullshit. Only in Liberal Economics can a president, or liberal loony blogger, parse out specific portions of a budget and blame those on the other guy. The budget is the budget. But honey, the new car and big screen is in the budget, it's the food and the kid's dental that is causing us to go into debt. Not my fault.

And Bush was given surplus budget projections as far as the eye could see

Bullshit talking point, but loved by the left -

Because it's true. Just like talking about the rain if it rained.

Clinton left off a trillion or so in entitlements

What would those be?

Social Security, for one. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't count as a budgetary strategy.

"That 1.3 tril isn't all Bush's, DAn-o."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And you call it The Tip O'Neill Compromise instead of The Reagan Revolution, right?

Tell me...if Bush was running a half-trillion dollar deficit, and TARP was a trillion, and Bush & Bernanke injected another trillion dollars into the banking system a few days before that passed...

...how does that add up?

And as for TARP, don't kid yourself. Paulson knew months in advance, Bush certainly knew long before he announced it, and even had Congress been 100% Republican it would have passed. No way in hell the Rs let the economy melt down three weeks before a national election.

" Clinton left off a trillion or so in entitlements, meaning to put those on additional supplemental budget bills."

Link?

"Only in Liberal Economics can a president, or liberal loony blogger, parse out specific portions of a budget and blame those on the other guy."

No, you do that in Conservative Economics classes, too.

If the tax cuts chopped a half-trillion in revenues, and the deficit is a half-trillion, it's actually pretty easy to put the puzzle pieces together.

"Social Security, for one"

You're joking, right? SS is currently a cash cow. So you're suggesting Clinton be charged with what's yet to happen, over a decade after he left office?

Quite a stretch.

and the current mess President Obama seeks to clean up.

....and even had Congress been 100% Republican it would have passed. No way in hell the Rs let the economy melt down three weeks before a national election.

what website do you paste that from? you post the exact same every time.

just an observation. more "if" stuff attached to republicans. There are plenty of actual things to stick to them without all of the "if" shit.

So you're suggesting Clinton be charged with what's yet to happen, over a decade after he left office?

Fuck no. I say we longjump over Clinton AND GWB Sr all the way to Reagan and stick him with everything.

-Danni.

herr bush is relevant cause he broke it

#13 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Clinton didn't create a $1 Trillion in Social Security obligations. Got a link?

On that note, Clinton ran on reforming welfare and saved states a trillion.

herr bush is relevant cause he broke it

He's a very convenient deflection whenever someone brings up Obama's flaws and lies too, isn't he?

Dan:

"You can have one or the other."
Huh? Reagan cut taxes and jacked up military spending. How was that Carter's doing?

The tax cuts were to help employment.

President Obama's debt is being incurred to help employment, and he also isn't freezing military spending, although Reagan did increase it more, most of Reagans debt was used to help employment that was left to him by his predecessor, just as President Obama's is.

he is not a deflection, he is human defication.

Bush was an awful president, fiscally and otherwise.

He fucked up big time.

Now that we've assigned blame, can we go on to C-U-R-R-E-N-T affairs? Or is Moder-H8 and his band of creeps forever trapped in 'blame-Bush' mode?

Previous question was rhetorical, of course. We already know that for some soft skulls here blaming Bush for Obama's problems will be perpetual.

That's what's annoying about false religions; the 'faithful' cannot bear it when you question their savior.

Moder-H8s weekly blather is the equivalent of plugging his ears and screeching "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"

When we're out of the hell of a the mess he left we're still digging out of we'll gladly quit talking about him. Sadly, the effects of his Presidency still resonate like a funeral bell throughout the economy.

It's perfectly understandable why conservatives would rather we forget. Republicans have done it much too ... conveniently.

"Fuck no. I say we longjump over Clinton AND GWB Sr all the way to Reagan and stick him with everything."

Or, even better, jump farther to the real cuprit...Milton Friedman.

He's a very convenient deflection whenever someone brings up Obama's flaws and lies too, isn't he?

#23 | Posted by goatman

They can't use Hitler.

"They can't use Hitler."

Why would we bring up Grandpappy Bush's buddy???

maybe it could be to see the proper way to keep americans from being killed by terrorists because the way obama and holder are going..
there are going to be innocent people killed..only two questions are when? and how will dems along with media and posters here blame it on W.
cause if you dont think they will...you havent been awake

It amazes me the GOPhers seem to believe that it is nothing more than deflection to point out that the crises currently facing the nation (and the WH) were the creation of the last administration. It doesn't mean President Obama does not have to confront the crises. But it does mean all fair minded people need to cut him some slack as he attempts to clean up the mess. Especially since so many of the same people were cutting GWB lots of slack when he was creating the mess.

"Why GWB Remains Relevant"

Because Obama will never accept responsibility nor will he ever accept blame. He needs Bush around as his whipping boy.

It amazes me the GOPhers seem to believe that it is nothing more than deflection to point out that the crises currently facing the nation (and the WH) were the creation of the last administration. It doesn't mean President Obama does not have to confront the crises.
#33 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-09 12:07 PM

But it does mean all fair minded people need to cut him some slack as he attempts to clean up the mess. Especially since so many of the same people were cutting GWB lots of slack when he was creating the mess.
#33 | Posted by moder8 at 2010-02-09 12:07 PM

I want you to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable.
--Barack Obama

...not...

I want you to focus on who created the mess and cut me all kinds of slack when I fuck up.

While clearly for leftwingers, Bush serves as a means of getting the spotlight off of Obama's failures and poor leadership.
FTFY, moder-h8

He's a very convenient deflection whenever someone brings up Obama's flaws and lies too, isn't he?

I hope you're just playing devil's advocate.

While clearly for rightwingers this serves as a viable means of mounting a partisan attack against President Obama

This is absolutely true.

Some want this to be black and white so they can find something to piss and moan about instead of acknowledging that in reality there is a continuum and that GWB's policies will continue to have effects beyond Obama's control.

For the depth to which he sunk this country into the shitter the prize has to go to George W. Bush.

I mean, Herbert Hoover had a good run at the title, but he was merely the last member of a clueless trifecta that included such luminaries as Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

So, factoring that into the equation, I gotta say: Yes, the system sucks and both parties often reflect its suckier sides, yet George Bush moved beyond that s.o.p. level of suckiness and set the the bar of sucketude way higher than it's probably ever been set in over 200 years.

Hard werk, that. Almost as difficult a challenge as the burden Bush and his enablers placed on his successors.

Hence, for many, the reason it will be a much colder than cold day in hell before George Bush slips off the radar screen. (Why should he be better treated --- with the soothing balm of anonymity --- than he's trated the rest of us?)

I think President Obama has done as well as could be hoped in the first year cleaning up Bush's mess. The borrow-and-spend policies of Bush and the Republican Congress were a total disaster for this country. Does anyone doubt that when Republicans take over again, they will use debt to spend like crazy while pretending they held the line on taxes?

Does anyone doubt that when Republicans take over again, they will use debt to spend like crazy while pretending they held the line on taxes?

#38 | Posted by rcade

Yes.

Does anyone doubt that when Republicans take over again, they will use debt to spend like crazy while pretending they held the line on taxes?

#38 | Posted by rcade

Yes.

Posted by wisgod

That's like the practicing alcoholic promising to do better next time.

(Wis, I'm NOT calling you a drunk.)

Does anyone doubt that when Republicans take over again, they will use debt to spend like crazy while pretending they held the line on taxes?

Of course not.

The Republicans have been the party of tax cuts to the wealthy and out of control spending fer a while now.

Since Reagan, in fact.

Like their "Party of Values" meme the idear that the rethugs are the more fiscally responsible of the two parties is a complete and utter lie.

One that can only be sold to blind partisan hacks and low-info mouth breathers.

Aint that right, Wussy?

Be Well.

SINCE reagan

surely you...a 'student of history' knows who ran congress during the entire reagan years.........

I am sure you mean POST reagan...right???

and lets see..

who ran the institution that CREATES TAX BILLS during bush 41..

OOPS....answer is DEMOCRATS>..AGAIN....

read my lips...........'ooh baby'