so juvenille

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's how I remember recent history. Obama, Biden, and Clinton were all sitting US Senators in the Democratic party before Obama became president. That party, the Democratic party, took control of Congress in 2006. AT that time, what the Democrats "inherited" was a thriving, robust, economy.

2006 marked the peak of the housing market, record setting household debt, a record trade deficit and declining GDP throughout the year. The stage was set for falling housing prices in 2007 and the start of the great recession.

Not quite the "thriving, robust, economy" as you assert.

We don't live in a dictatorship. The legislative branch sets the legislative agenda. The Democrats controlled the legislature from 2006 until 2010. Look where the stock market, and unemployment, were when the Democrats took control in 2006.

The Democrats controlled the white house, the house of reps, and the Senate from 2008-2010. Did things get better, or worse, during that time?

Try making that wrong.

Using your methodology of selective, analysis free reasoning it sure is easy to make it right eh?

-spence

[detbuch]

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

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

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?

[scottw]

seems to be a common theme here recently with the Obama relativism from the usual suspects

REUTERS
Obama accuses Congress of holding back U.S. recovery

By Laura MacInnis

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.

"The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That's the problem right now. That's what's holding this country back," the president said in his weekly radio address, which is also transmitted on the Internet.

[scottw]

Obama Blames His Low Approval Ratings on Unhappiness With Washington
August 21, 2011

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. (AP) — President Barack Obama says his low approval rating is a reflection of public unhappiness with Congress.

Obama tells CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday that he’s “impacted,” just like Congress, when people aren’t happy with Washington.

He says he understands that his arguments(lies and distortions) that the country would have been worse off if he hadn‘t taken certain actions don’t resonate with the millions of unemployed people.
hey, he got something right

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.
no, you said "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"

if he did it so "frequently"..... surely you can provide some proof of your contention


Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable.
-spence

again, please provide some evidence to back up your claim because the Bush crowd was quite frustrated with the President in his unwillingness to respond to detractors and point out the "root" of many of the issues that he faced....Obama, on the otherhand, has turned the blame game into a part-time job to go along with his other part-time job as president...

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

if Obama is engaged in "effective marketing" for his reelection currently...I hope he keeps it up....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Perhaps, you're thinking of another thread. The "isssue" was not about "making excuses." I was answering your "context for my response was an assertion by RIJIMMY that Bush never blamed anyone else for his problems." Actually, RIJIMMY didn't say that, at least not in this thread. If it was about excuses . . . don't we all? And, if statements are true, they are not excuses. I think Jimmy's complaint was, not that Bush NEVER complained or blamed, but that Obama does it too much. We can expect some implied finger pointing from any POTUS, especially in reply to accusations. But a steady drumbeat sounds more like campaigning than explaining. Personally, I wouldn't complain about Obama's marketing strategy. If he doesn't succeed, it will all be hollow. And I have become less a Bush/Republican apologist (never was) and more awakened, like JOHNNYD, to see that they're all tramping on the Constitution. That I lean Republican and run from Democrat, is solely that the former shows the best hope, between the two, to drift back to Constitutional government. That's why I like the Tea Party movement, and hope it does not dissipate, but grows.

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 don't know what you mean by "pretty consistent in remarking." Is that implying that he harped on it and that he (not other republicans and commentators) specifically blamed Clinton or Reagan for 9/11? And, I don't think he said that Clinton/Reagan actions made America look vulnerable, but that incidents and responses in the past were viewed by Al Quaida as American weakness. He felt that his response to 9/11 corrected the erroneous view of the terrorists, not that Clinton/Reagan actions were weak. But that innefective Democrat/liberal/aided-by-Spence maketing can spin pretty gold into straw and an explanation into an excuse. And the "wasn't paying attention" comment could certainly be an "inherited" trait--9/11 was planned well before Bush took office, which, actually, wasn't very long before the attack occurred. And "they hate us for our freedom" certainly did not blame the previous Presidents.


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.


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

Yeah, poor Obama, not much he can do. Of Course, Bush was to blame for a large portion of the problems that Obama can't do much about. It's amazing that one President can create problems that another can't fix. Yeah, his pitch should be interesting. More of that less than half capable marketing, would you say.

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.


Yeah, technically, but not really.

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...


Yeah, use that ineffective less than half the power of Republican marketing to defeat that so much more powerful marketing.

There are multiple issues here to judge. Was Iraq the proper strategic play?

So far, it appears Iraq was the most easily accessible Muslim Middle East nation susceptible to a democratic form of government.

Was the war justified to the American people?

It must have been, he got re-elected.


Was the war executed well?

As well as most.


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

Much less of a problem under a U.S. Constitution form of government. But for an overbloated, Central Government taking on responsibiblites that the Constitution reserves to the States and the people, yeah--massive problems. Problems that most likely will grow. That is the nature of near unlimited power. It cannot be stopped. Nor does it freely give up its power.

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+.

Yeah, it takes time to unwind this big ball of unconstitutional mess.

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

That's all wonkish, status quo system, jibberjabber. Just more winding threads around the big messy ball. More government intervention and growth and forced dependance of us to its usurped power to "fix."


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

-spence

Of course it is. But it isn't the Republican/ conservative/ right wing putting the words in his mouth.