Comments on: Bush’s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

By: Scott Thomas

Scott Thomas — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:03:39 +0000

So lets raise taxes and pay for it. The act will decrease the budget deficit when it finally gets implemented, and it can certainly be improved upon in the coming years. Perhaps by eventually eliminating the profit motive, which is the real problem with our healthcare system.

By: DVSRomad

DVSRomad — Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:02:31 +0000

Really? Bush does bear a lot of blame for what he did during his presidency, and yes he put forth a large budget in 2004, it takes money to run a war (or two). What is sad is that Liberals and Conservatives have lost the ability to “see reality” in front of them.

The Democrats are Hypocrite, just as are the Republicans. Don’t fool yourself.

Yes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bear an enormous amount of blame for where we are having put together that Stimulus boondoggle that increased the nations debt like no other before.

As with any President, He/she (yes there may be a she in the future) will get the blame/praise for anything the previous President did during the first 2 years of their term, after that it is ALL on them. This applies whether it was really Congress’s fault/incite that caused any Failure/Good Fortune.

But as stated above, when When Obama became President, he took over a Government that was controlled by his Party. He could have revoked a lot of the Bush era stuff and reduced spending, but he allowed the leaders of both houses to put together one of the worst financial travesty’s ever to have come out of congress. The Republicans did not vote foe it at all ad still it passed, so please do not say this was all Bush’s fault. The Obama pushed his health care crap on congress, holding secret meetings where it appears he bribed and threatened members of his own party to vote fore it even when they had publicly stated they were against it, because of the amount of unfunded money it would cost.

So in closing, Bush does bear blame, but Obama and the Democrats now bear as much if not more, and if you are unable to see this, then…it will just be business as usual for you.

By: win

win — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:09:52 +0000

Washington was probably one of the few we shouldn’t blame.
The article has it a bit wrong though. Congress did not approve Bush’s budget. They passed an Omnibus bill to fund most programs for the rest of the year after Obama got in. Half of TARP was also under Obama, he asked Bush to request it but it went to Obama.
Congress passed continuing resolutions funding the government at the prior year for most of the appropriations until Obama came in. They passed a couple of appropriation bills they had no disagreement with Bush on.
The omnibus bill passed with lots of earmarks, but Obama said he had to sign it anyhow.
So much of 2009 was on Obama. That said, it is that Obama seems to have troubles with bringing the spending down himself, from the new higher levels set by increases durning the recession. Those spending levels should not be considered a “new norm”, nor should Bush’s. Rather we should work to get a balanced budget, with lower spending levels.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:23:20 +0000

More smoke and mirrors. The budget that Bush himself submitted to Congress in 2004 for FY2005 pegged federal spending levels at their highest in 30 years. Hopefully I don’t need to remind you that Democrats did not control the House in 2004. And when they did take control in 2007, they did so without a veto proof majority. Mr. McMaken is correct in his observation that Bush could have picked up a veto pen but chose not to. More to the point, it’s patently absurd that conservatives make an earnest attempt to attribute all that spending to the last 1/4 of Bush’s presidency. Remember, a little common sense (and a good memory) go a long way…

By: AG

AG — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:53:24 +0000

Ryan,

Thank you for the honesty. It is a breath of fresh air for someone who does not like Obama’s policies to actually be reasoned and reasonable about the truth. We shall see if Obama’s policies end up being worse than his predecessors, but so far the history is that democrat presidents are actually the ones who attempt more spending restraint! It stuns me that so-called fiscal conservatives keep voting Republicans, how is more spending and less taxes fiscally responsible, let alone fiscally conservative? At least the Democrats are not hypocrites, they tell you what they are going to do and, like it or not, it is at least fiscally responsible (if you are going to spend more, for goodness sake, don’t lower taxes! I would prefer you not to spend more, but there is an inflow and outflow balance sheet, you can’t ignore either side).

By: R Lee

R Lee — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:10:59 +0000

Yes, looking at what seems to be the coming lineup aren’t you just overwhelmed with the great choices? Is there a “scum test” they have to pass to be considered?

By: RTB

RTB — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 02:16:43 +0000

Not that I don’t agree with the premise of the article, nor am I a Republican or a “conservative”, but perhaps we should look at who controlled congress during any time period in question? Surely, the President has input and influence, but congress “controls the purse strings” and is really the driving force behind the federal budget.

By: Oaege

Oaege — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:25:45 +0000

When the Democrats took over Congressional purse strings early 2007, all restraint was gone — pure pedal-to-the-medal spending took over.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:43:19 +0000

I think most people missed the overall point of this post. It wasn’t to exonerate Obama, but rather to point out that “Fiscal conservative” is at best a misnomer, and at worst, a steaming pile of shit.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:28:55 +0000

lol. Obama never voted on anything as a senator…

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:35:17 +0000

There is plenty of blame to go around. Let’s give Bush his fair share, at least.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 22:54:15 +0000

Yes, it is time we “hire” the good CEO, unlike all the other bad CEOs. We must find that perfect philospher king and all shall be right with the world. Never mind the past several hundred years, where others opined for the same in far more eloquent terms than I.
This time it will happen; I can just feel it.
Change is a-comin’.
pfft…

By: Dick Fox

Dick Fox — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:43:54 +0000

Ryan,

Thanks for the honesty. Bush was a disaster in the last two years of his presidency. We can try to sweeten the poison but like it, or not your analysis is spot on.

But now to President Obama. If you are on the corporate board and your CEO has virtually destroyed your company, when you hire a new CEO you certainly don’t expect him to do the same things that your first CEO did to create the problems. My criticism of Obama is that his economic team continued the horrible policies of the Bush administration.

I wish that we had fired our earlier CEO (except that I am not sure the proposed replacements were any better) but simply because we did not fire a bad CEO does not lock us into keeping an equally bad CEO. It is time to “hire” a CEO that will reverse both the Bush and Obama economic policies.

By: Jack

Jack — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:53:51 +0000

Junk Science Skeptic: Thank you for stating the obvious.

Obama will be the ultimate destroyer of this country through his “economic policies.” There’s no defending him.

By: Junk Science Skeptic

Junk Science Skeptic — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:23:33 +0000

Any budget passed between January 2007 and January 2011 rests as much on the shoulders of the Pelosi-Reid Democrat-controlled Congress as it does on Bush.

By: Iain

Iain — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:20:44 +0000

Let me stop laughing first. Anything that Bush did will pale in comparison to the Obama agenda. If past trends are any indication of what’s to come, obamacare could end up costing tens of trillions of dollars.

By: Bogart

Bogart — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:42:52 +0000

Also by this same logic the Obama Administration is fighting like crazy to keep minute decreases in spending from taking place. So literally, he is worsening the Bush disaster. But the Democratheads are partially correct in several years this issue will be a non problem. In this year alone the USG has to refund 8trillion in due short term loans but the issue is other than Federal Reserve, who will purchase them?

By: Walt D.

Walt D. — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:54:25 +0000

Obama was a Senator before he was President. He voted for some of the Bush increases, including the infamous bailout. We seem to forget that it is Congress that controls spending.

By: The Fringe Economist

The Fringe Economist — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:10:57 +0000

In the end it was probably George Washington’s fault