[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

You're wanting an answer to your question and not the question I was answering.

The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.

I didn't find him placing the blame for 9/11 on someone else. Perhaps he did.

Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable. While there's probably some truth to that, it's also an excuse to distract from accusations the Whitehouse wasn't paying attention. Not to mention the whole "they hate us for our freedom" press campaign which was about as excuse heavy as they get.

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.

Not sure I'd consider it a ploy, rather he's just trying to defend against those who would brand the economic woes on him personally.

I'd like to think he could do better, although he's also in quite a pickle. There's very little Obama can do, perhaps aside from another large stimulus, that would spur short-term growth in time to impact the election. And now that we've been through the credit circle jerk even that would likely be impossible. It will be interesting to hear his upcoming pitch on the subject, his reelection could hang on it.

Yes, we agree, he directly, not implicitly, blamed Republican policies for the 2008 recession.

He's also blamed rampant spending as well. I don't think he's ever said it's all Bush's fault.

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.

Well, yes and no.

A budget doesn't have to include all liabilities like a balance sheet would. So technically speaking Clinton did balance the budget, but just not with a long-term plan to pay the debts.

Then why did Obama, so successfully run against Bush, not McCain?

Because of the war and the timing of the second recession. McCain wasn't in charge for either of these and had no plan to address any differently than Bush would, yet Bush generated a more emotional response from the electorate. Play to win...

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.

There are multiple issues here to judge. Was Iraq the proper strategic play? Was the war justified to the American people? Was the war executed well?

The first question will be debated forever. As things sit right now I see both positive and negative aspects.

The second question I do think has played out and the answer is no. Despite the bias of some contemporary commentators, there's simply too large a body of first hand accounts to not be able to construct a fairly complete picture.

The third question is a mix. Certainly the pre-war planning appeared to be deficient and some would argue downright ignorant of local cultures. Much of this seemed to be addressed with new leadership over time which has allowed our efforts to be more productive.

What's sure is that the last two questions will always dog the first.

It's "not entirely untrue" that spending is the problem. Actually it is entirely true that it is--regardless of Left/Right, Democrat/Republican.

I would say that deficit spending, short-term'ism and revenue generation are all big problems.

To say that spending is "the"problem ignores the realities of the current situation. Even if we pass massive spending cuts there will still be projected deficits for the next decade+.

Spending cuts, revenue generation and other means to encourage business growth should all be on the table.

And why is Obama still running against Bush. Isn't he aware that the left's marketing engine is less than 1/2 as effective as the Right's?

Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?

-spence