Originally Posted by spence
The context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems. From terrorism to the recession he certainly did place the root of the problem on the shoulders of others quite frequently.
Did he actually, directly say that the recession he "inherited" was Clinton's or his administration's fault? I find no such accusation through a google search. Doesn't mean he didn't--just can't find it. If you can find it, then RIJIMMY is wrong to say NEVER, and maybe say not as constantly. When, in response to attacks that his policies caused the recession, he used the word "inherit" re the recession that had begun before he took office (which it did), I suppose it can be excused as you excuse Obama's much more incessant use of the term "a bit of rhetoric, for sure, but not entirely untrue." I didn't find him placing the blame for 9/11 on someone else. Perhaps he did. He was certainly blamed enough for it, so he might have come back with scenarios that showed he was not "responsible" and those scenarios might have implied others. I just don't recall him constantly casting blame as an excuse or a re-election ploy. Maybe just my selective memory, and my laziness in doing a more than skimpy search.
As for Obama claiming it was republican policies that caused the 2008 recession...what I've Obama most commonly talking about the issues he's "inherited". He certainly has blamed Bush policy (tax cuts, deregulation, war spending etc...) at times...and on paper these all were major factors in the reversal from a surplus to a deficit. So it's a bit of rhetoric for sure, but not entirely untrue.
Yes, we agree, he directly, not implicitly, blamed Republican policies for the 2008 recession. As far as the deficit--a budget deficit can only occur if you spend more than you have. To say that . . . well . . . more revenues are needed is admitting you are spending too much. Borrowing can help, only if you can and do repay the loan. Fact is, no administration, including Clinton's, who has "borrowed" from the Social Security "trust fund," has repaid the loan, but they have all gotten deeper in debt to it. So none have truly had a budget surplus. If your personal budget is in balance except for a gigantic debt that dwarfs the size of your budget and destroys your ability to repay, your budget is not in balance--you need chapter 11. So this reversal from surplus to defecit is bunk. The budget has been in defecit for a long, long time, and the National debt has constantly risen in all these administrations.
On Bush turning the surplus into a deficit - this message held well with the left, but I think most people factor in the short duration, terrorist attacks and corporate scandals and Bush isn't in the hot seat with the majority. It's certainly hasn't had a lasting effect.
Then why did Obama, so successfully run against Bush, not McCain?
On the Bush war - yes, he's been pounded on this but the majority of the country believes they were "marketed" into Iraq. While I have no doubt Bush personally thought he was doing the right thing...I do think his lumps are well deserved here.
It usually takes history several years to judge if lumps are deserved. Contemporary writing is usually too close and to full of biased contradictions to be accurate.
And why did Obama run against Bush rather than McCain?
The big difference is the lengths the Right has gone to frame the entire economic situation (recession and deficits) around liberals and spending which has been very effective. People here post stories about Obama's 2009 1.6 trillion dollar stimulus package and they don't even notice what's going on.
I don't think the left has a marketing engine that's 1/2 as effective.
-spence
|