“When Bush left office,” Tim Stanley writes in the Telegraph,
. . . unemployment was 7.8 per cent; today it is 7.9 per cent. Debt is up, food stamps are up, income is stagnant. Bush bailed out Wall Street and so did Obama – even Obama’s much vaunted “rescue” of the auto industrywas actually kick started by Bush. If Bush suffocated civil liberties with the Patriot Act, Obama blew them to Kingdom Come with that awful kill list.
In many ways, the policies and performances of Obama and Bush are rather similar. There are some differences. First, Obama accelerated big government trends that he inherited from W – debt as a percentage of GDP is way, way up.
(Via Sarah Hoyt @ Instapundit.) After citing the parties’ “cultural” differences, Stanley concludes that both W and Obama are New Dealers: “If Bush was Roosevelt Lite, Obama was Roosevelt Max Strength.” Only problem is “that the moment when the hardcore Roosevelt fans finally got the keys to the candy store was the exact moment when it had run out of candy.”
Simply put, all that government spending had depleted the Treasury.
And Obama never asked the American people to pay for all the “candy” he wants to shower upon them. He filled up our shopping carts with items he, to borrow an expression, just “didn’t pay for.” He only talked about raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, tax hikes which would barely put a dent in the deficit. He didn’t ask other Americans to pay their fair share for programs designed to benefit them.
Although Obama promised four years ago to change politics as we know it, the only real change he has offered has been to accelerate the pace of government spending. “The Romney/Paul [sic] ticket”, has, by contrast, Stanley offers, seemed to grasp “that America simply cannot continue the way it is going. In a globalised world, smaller government is more competitive and more competitive is more beautiful. It is also more concomitant with the American historical tradition.” Indeed. Read the whole thing.