Bush-hatred: the liberal obsession that won’t die
More than two-and-one-half years after George W. Bush left the White House, his successor began his speech on the debt crisis blaming him for the mess we’re in, as if no one’s been minding the store since said successor took office.
It’s not just Barack Obama. Now, we’ve got a staff writer at Salon using a bizarre manner of budget calculation, concluded apparently by the left-wing think tank, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (founded by a Carter Administration official) to conclude that, well, the deficit is all Bush’s fault.
Well, you can’t keep blaming Bush when his successor’s had more than two years to correct his mistakes. If the Bush tax cuts were so bad, why then didn’t Obama repeal them when he had a Democratic Congress? Or just let them lapse.
It does seem that many liberals, instead of recognizing that Obama’s policies are not working, would rather blame Bush, a tactic that served them so well in 2006 and 2008 — and may have brought them some emotional satisfaction before that. And maybe still does.
FROM THE COMMENTS: ILoveCapitalism offers a superb succinct summary:
The deficit problem is a spending problem. Bush did unwisely increase non-defense spending by some hundreds of billions (including a new entitlement program). But the spending/deficit problem really took off in FY2008, the first budget in some years to be authored by a Democratic Congress:http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
Emphasis added. Read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Is the White House and not a left-wing think tank the source of this flimflammery? (The chart Megan McArdle includes in this post (via Instapundit) seems remarkably similar to the one linked above.)
35 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The deficit problem is a spending problem. Bush did unwisely increase non-defense spending by some hundreds of billions (including a new entitlement program). But the spending/deficit problem really took off in FY2008, the first budget in some years to be authored by a Democratic Congress: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/
As for FY2009, the Democrats wouldn’t even let Bush sign that budget: they deliberately held it back, so that Obama would add spending to it in early 2009 – which Obama did. Which means: Obama owns FY2009. And that was the beginning of the $1.5 trillion-deficit budgets. And no, it wasn’t economically necessary; it’s been economically *harmful*, a drag on the economy’s recovery from the Panic of 2008.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2011 @ 1:31 am - July 27, 2011
Thank you ILoveCapitalism and also B. Daniel.
When I saw that graphic yesterday I knew it was a trick of lying with statistics.
But I couldn’t have explained it.
Believe it or not, I have perused the web looking for explanations of it, BUT I have seen no one tackle it better than you two!
Thanks again.
Comment by Nan G — July 27, 2011 @ 1:37 am - July 27, 2011
ILC, superb succinct summary, esp. to note that the FY 2008 budget was the first written by a Democratic Congress since FY 1995 budget in 1994.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 27, 2011 @ 1:40 am - July 27, 2011
LOL,
I don’t understand you Dan. By all means you should LOVE Obama as he is continuing all the Bush policies: secret arrests, patriot act, war mongering, increase government, bailout wall street and off shore bankers, on and on.
You should be an Obama bot.
Comment by JS — July 27, 2011 @ 1:42 am - July 27, 2011
Why shouldn’t we be blaming Bush for the terrible state of the economy? He was the President for 8 years and had his way on many issues due to his party’s control of the Congress…. if his party’s policies lead us to this point, why shouldn’t that be mentioned as an argument against his party’s proposals to fix the problem? For the most part, the same people that were helping Bush ruin the economy in the 2000s are still in power and still subscribing to the same ideology. Call me crazy, but I don’t trust the people who made the mess to know how to clean it up.
I think George Bush is a pretty terrible human being, but I have completely legitimate justification for my perspective of him. His party is clearly responsible for the state of the economy, and while Obama has done a pathetic job of cleaning it up, he has a point. He inherited one of the worst recessions in American history from his predecessor, a Republican. Sorry. I know that conservatives like to think they’re the economic wizards and everything, but those are the facts. You can be as hyper-defensive as you want, and you can dismiss my opinion by wild-eyed irrational hatred, but at the end of the day, Bush did a shitty job, and there’s no denying it.
As far as the details are concerned, do you think Bush’s contributions to the deficit were worth it? You still think we needed to spend all that money on the wars? Are you grateful that all those rich people got those huge tax cuts that they didn’t use to create jobs? When you’re pretending to hyper-ventilate over the deficit, do you ever think it would have been nice if we had that money back? Are you trying to accept any responsibility at all, now that years have passed and we’ve gotten a chance to see the consequences of Republican policies and leadership?
Comment by Levi — July 27, 2011 @ 1:45 am - July 27, 2011
I know you’ll be loathe to admit it, but policies enacted by George Bush are contributing to the deficit even today. Just because Obama became the President one day, doesn’t mean he owns all of Bush’s deficit contributions, does it? Bush’s tax cuts, Bush’s wars, Bush’s prescription drug program…. all of these things are contributing to the deficit now, they’re contributing in a huge way, but are most assuredly not Obama’s fault, right?
Bush had a budget surplus when he started off, if you remember. And he handed the reigns over to the next guy after a decade of hugely expensive policies that will be contributing to the deficit for years, if not decades. It simply isn’t fair to blame it all on Obama, since he took over with a lot of these policies in place. It’s simply dishonest to pretend that the deficits under Obama are 100% purely his own doing, and that’s what your graph aims to do. The huge deficits under Obama are being driven to a significant degree by the policies of his predecessor.
Comment by Levi — July 27, 2011 @ 2:08 am - July 27, 2011
You’re moonbatshitcrazy and a lying ass to boot.
Not only do you trust them implicitly, you voted for them.
No you don’t. You have a laundry list of liberal lying points and projections and you cowardly tuck tail and run away whenever somebody calls you on it.
HOW?
Ok. Let’s pretend you’re right. Why didn’t the liberals immediately do away with all of it? Why didn’t they ratchet taxes up to 100% for all income earners? If they were so concerned with loopholes, why didn’t they cut out the one that allows tens of millions of Americans to get money back instead of paying in? Why didn’t they end the expensive wars instead of turning our soldiers, who don’t know what the hell is going on anymore, into targets?
Remember when the liberals were whining about Bush’s spending and “record deficits”? Where are they now? Spending more in a year than Bush ever could in eight.
Yep. Created by Republicans. We had HUGE revenues until liberals came in and shat all over that.
They spent eight years trying to convince us that we were in a depression. Now that we’re in one OF THEIR OWN MAKING, they’re trying to piss on our backs and tell us it’s a recovery. Why should we vote for them? Obama campaigned on cutting spending and cutting waste from the budget. He hasn’t done it yet. Why the hell would anybody believe he intends to do so now?
We’re where we are because dumbasses like YOU voted for tax cheats, economic retards, slum lords and homophobes and you put a token in charge of all of them. YOU, sir, are responsible.
Comment by TGC — July 27, 2011 @ 3:41 am - July 27, 2011
Just answer this, Levi:
Do you deny that the Bush tax cuts, which liberals voted for, INCREASED the percentage of all income taxes paid for by “the rich”?
Do you realize that when liberal dipshits post all over the internet that “Republicans only want to help the rich” are voicing their support for Obama donors like Soros, Buffett, Gates etc. when they call for higher taxes?
Yes or no?
BONUS: Are you grateful that Chairman ObaMarx has saved or created more campaign donors than he has jobs?
Comment by TGC — July 27, 2011 @ 4:40 am - July 27, 2011
Maybe I am just stupid, but did the Democrats not gain the congress with a majority in BOTH Houses in 2006? Then gain more seats in 2008? Not to mention the White House? Could they not have done something about the so-called Bush Spending Spree? If they were so concerned about his “Reckless” spending, ought not they have done something about it when they had the majority in 2 of the 3 branches of our Government?
Don’t know if you saw Bill O’Reilly’s spending graphic or not, but Bush’s spending amounted to $1+ Billion a day, while Obama’s is at 4 Billion a day! So don’t tell me about Bush era spending – which the Democrats did nothing to curb when they got in to office – when I see this President spending nearly four times as much! Democrats had Congressional power for four years and did nothing! That sat on their duffs and punted the problem, then added to the problem, now they try to blame it all on Bush.
Comment by Dameon — July 27, 2011 @ 5:37 am - July 27, 2011
Levi trots out his lies again, in the face of facts.
Just like his idol Gobbels, he believes that if he repeats the lie often enough, someone will believe it.
In Levi’s world, President Bush was crashing the economy while he was ordering Abu Grabhib and orchestrating 9/11.
Levi’s just mad that President Bush doesn’t share his racist beliefs and has done more for the environment than Clinton and Obama.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 27, 2011 @ 7:33 am - July 27, 2011
Yes, let’s say I’m right. Because I am. What do you mean HOW? Bush began a number of government policies that greatly increased the deficit without any spending cuts. Those policies extend well past his own presidency – would you dispute this? Of course, I would have preferred for Obama to end as many of his programs as possible. Unfortunately, this is unrealistic, especially considering the fact that Obama has been trying to pull of this ‘I’m the bipartisanship guy’ since the day he took office.
Also – your little remark about the wars…. Do you mean to tell me that the soldiers knew what they were doing there while Bush was in office?
That’s crazy. We had huge revenues, until Republicans took power and the liberals increased spending? What? Again – conservatives refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of the policies they supported, and instead go to embarrassing lengths to blame everyone else. You heard it here folks, the liberals are responsible for the Bush deficits!
Comment by Levi — July 27, 2011 @ 8:07 am - July 27, 2011
I love the way Levi shows up to prove the point of the post.
I 2xlove the fact that he is too stupid to realize he is validating the point of the post.
I despise George W. Bush, and I despised him for six of the eight years he was in office. Bush’s irresponsible spending… yes, including the Democrat-authored Prescription Drug Benefit… was not a product of conservative principles, it was a betrayal of them. But because I am grown up, and Levi is not, I recognize that Bush is not primarily responsible for the current economy and deficits. Because I understand math, and Levi dows not, I can see that the problem is a bloated dysfunctional Federal Government that is spending 25% of GDP (versus 20-21% under Bush).
Our Federal Government is the equivalent of that 2,000 lb guy who had to have a wall torn down from his house so a forklift could take him out of bed; and Obama and his Democrats act like its outrageous to make him cut back his diet by even one Tic-Tac.
Comment by V the K — July 27, 2011 @ 8:12 am - July 27, 2011
Cue Levi.
Levi enters on cue.
Levi rants and proves the point.
Levi continues to rant, believing that he is being heard.
Levi throws the frothing rant switch to express his hyper-sincere belief in what he has been ranting.
Dance, monkey dance. Now pass the cup. And remember to tip your hat for each coin you collect.
Comment by Heliotrope — July 27, 2011 @ 8:45 am - July 27, 2011
What facts, Dogma?
Did you notice, for starters, how that graph overlaps years — transferring all Obama’s expenses in 2009 to Bush?
Did you also notice how that graph ascribed to Bush the FY 2009 federal budget — which, if you had read the comments above, was held over by the Obama Party and which OBAMA passed and signed?
Did you also notice the best trick of all — how only Bush is charged for tax cuts, and Obama is not?
Racist liars like yourself and the NYT are desperate to protect your ignorant and failing fool Obama, and you’re getting even more sloppy and blatant with your lies than usual. All you’re doing is demonstrating that Obama is a helpless and incompetent moron and that you acknowledge his inferiority.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2011 @ 9:48 am - July 27, 2011
Isn’t it funny to watch the delusional Levi?
According to Levi, government spending always creates jobs and prosperity, so we should always spend more, never cut anything, and run massive deficits.
But the delusional Levi flips around and screeches that government spending is bad, it always destroys prosperity and jobs, and that the government should spend less, cut, and run surpluses.
In short, Levi hates government spending and demands more of it. Levi opposes deficits and demands trillion-dollar ones. Levi wants spending cuts while ranting that spending cuts kill Grandma.
People are realizing that Levi and his Obama are incoherent little children who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into adulthood and responsibility by those who are more intelligent and rational than they are.
Like Sarah Palin.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2011 @ 10:02 am - July 27, 2011
If Bush was so terrible about spending, why has Obama continued and expanded his spending policies?
Comment by V the K — July 27, 2011 @ 10:23 am - July 27, 2011
Aww look, Granny Goodness is back with a fact free rant.
Levi Lies, Granny rants… Now all we need is Dooms telling us that not blaming Bush is racist and the trifecta of trolls will be complete.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 27, 2011 @ 10:35 am - July 27, 2011
Our dear friend Auntie Dogma was consigned to the spam folder quite some time ago (long before I came on board here, FYI), so I’ve taken the liberty of re-sentencing him there. Rest assured, it is for good reason, given the impotent rage (and tastelessness) of the dozens of posts he’s continually attempted to post here.
Auntie is well aware of his status, and reacted every bit as a vitriolically as you would expect. He is, in every sense of the word, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Comment by Eric Olsen — July 27, 2011 @ 10:41 am - July 27, 2011
Bush ran deficits of $400B… therefore Obama MUST run year after year of deficits of $1.5 trillion!!!1! He has no choice!
Sure… only a lefty could believe it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2011 @ 10:59 am - July 27, 2011
And taxing all those
fat cat millionairesprofessionals and small business owners, with their fancy small-business owner corporate jets… that’ll plug the gap! Yeah! Tax ‘em 100%! (and watch employment plummet even further)Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 27, 2011 @ 11:40 am - July 27, 2011
Total cost of the 2 wars since 2001 : $1.226 trillion. This year’s deficit is about the same amount. So, the “war” complaint is just plain stupid.
Comment by TnnsNE1 — July 27, 2011 @ 12:22 pm - July 27, 2011
I’m still waiting for anyone to show evidence that cutting taxes creates jobs. Sure, it sounds like it ought to be true but not one credible economic analysis have I seen that proves it. Your failure to rely on evidence in favor of ideology is why you can’t make a decent argument about the deficit issue either. I could eat a bowl of alpha-bit cereal and poop a better argument than what I see above.
Comment by PeeJ — July 27, 2011 @ 2:06 pm - July 27, 2011
Then apparently you’re either a teenager, a Cuban college student, or simply, and quite deliberately, stupid.
By all means, feel free to continue eating your cereal, kiddo, and let the grown-ups talk.
Comment by Eric Olsen — July 27, 2011 @ 2:12 pm - July 27, 2011
I’m still waiting for anyone to show evidence that cutting taxes creates jobs.
Well, that’s easy.
Speaking before a meeting with business leaders, Obama said: “I am absolutely convinced that this tax cut plan, while not perfect, will help grow our economy and create jobs in the private sector.”
Since PeeJ’s Messiah Obama, who according to PeeJ and his fellow liberals is never wrong, says it, it must be true.
And also, we should remember that PeeJ and his fellow Obama Party syncophants insist that anyone who disagrees with or contradicts Obama in any way is doing so out of racism and hates black people — so if PeeJ dares to criticize Obama or say that Obama was wrong, he proves himself to be a hatemonger and a racist.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 27, 2011 @ 3:06 pm - July 27, 2011
And now PeeJ’s back.
Given how he’s endorsed thievery, disrupting people’s lives for political gain and made empty threats I think we should rename the thread “Who let the trolls out?”
Comment by The_Livewire — July 27, 2011 @ 3:13 pm - July 27, 2011
No, he’s not. As soon as he decided to start flinging poo on the walls rather than actually post an argument, he found himself playing cards with Auntie Dogma.
Comment by Eric Olsen — July 27, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - July 27, 2011
I’m waiting for the first liberal who can prove that giving more money to the government creates jobs.
In the six quarters prior to the 2003 tax cuts, that democrats voted for, we lost 267,000 jobs. In the next six quarters, we added 307,000. In the next seven quarters after that, 5 million jobs were created. What do you suppose was responsible for that instead? Sure as hell wasn’t redirecting money to Uncle Sugar, was it? Imagine the jobs that could be created with the $2 TRILLION a year businesses have to pay to comply with ObaMarx’s regulations.
While you’re at it, please cite the “credible economic analysis” you’ve seen. Also, explain why non of the dems in Congress seem keen on raising taxes right now.
I’ll wait.
Comment by TGC — July 27, 2011 @ 3:21 pm - July 27, 2011
The evidence is there, Peej just isn’t interested in it.
For the, “Low Taxes create jobs model,” we have the state of Texas, which accounted for 50% of all jobs created in the USA in the last decade.
For the “High taxes destroy jobs model,” we have California, which lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the same period.
Only someone as stupid as Peej or Levi would fail to acknowledge this as evidence.
Comment by V the K — July 27, 2011 @ 4:02 pm - July 27, 2011
It’s easy to create jobs if you allow bubbles to develop and inflate haphazardly. Bush had given every one of those jobs back (and then some) by the time he left office. Rich people didn’t take their tax cuts and immediately start opening new branches and hiring new people – they tried to double their money by playing in the can’t-lose housing market of the early 2000s. And sure, there were lots of jobs created in servicing that housing market, but it had all disappeared within a few quarters. The tax cuts produced short term economic growth at the cost of long term growth and stability – that’s no achievement.
Comment by Levi — July 27, 2011 @ 11:36 pm - July 27, 2011
JS, please note that I criticized W for not doing enough to control government spending and have never advocated big government.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 28, 2011 @ 1:35 am - July 28, 2011
Who’s “they”?
Think maybe there wouldn’t have been a problem if liberals hadn’t forced lenders to take it in the ass and loan to people with no income?
Here’s your fellow lovers of capitalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63siCHvuGFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1
Comment by TGC — July 28, 2011 @ 2:17 am - July 28, 2011
Wow so if the slowness of economy gets to be blamed on bush after 3 years do we get to blame reagan and hw bush for the prosperity of the nineties yesss!!!!!
Comment by Mellyk5 — July 28, 2011 @ 4:22 am - July 28, 2011
Well, Mellyk5, after the 1994 elections, Bill Clinton didn’t attempt to re-regulate the economy or expand the federal government. Since he effectively kept Reagan’s policies in place, you could say, well, it was still Ronald Reagan’s economy in the 1990s.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 29, 2011 @ 1:48 am - July 29, 2011
[...] but his spending spree seems restrained when compared to that of his successor. No matter how liberal economists try to dress it up, the Obama administration increased the rate of increase in federal spending above and beyond what [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Face Facts: Today’s Democrats Bear Brunt of Blame for Debt — July 29, 2011 @ 2:57 am - July 29, 2011
[...] seems an article blaming the deficit on George W. Bush (of which I took note late Tuesday night (PST)) originated in a chart the White House [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Obama White House: Once Again, Blaming Bush for Debt Crisis — July 31, 2011 @ 6:18 pm - July 31, 2011