A fellow named Rich had this to say to me in response to my article, “GOP Or Democrats: Who’s To Blame For the Budget, Spending And Shutdown Mess We’re Now In?”:
Not sure how I got to your site, but I thought I would add my two cents. Obviously, to anyone watching the budget debacle, it is much more complicated than you have laid out, and thrown at the feet of the Democrats. For the two years the Democrats held control of the House and Senate, the House sent budgets to the Senate that were held up by the Republicans using the rule that in order to get anything passed, there had to be 60 votes for it. The Republicans did everything they could to hold up any legislation. You also neglect to mention the sorry state of the economy even at the point the Democrats took power, which necessitated a huge increase in spending the George Bush signed, because he knew that without that spending our economy was going down. For the last nearly four years, we have watched a battle as the economy, which should have crashed because of the excesses of the financial world’s follies, was barely kept afloat by government spending. And those financial follies, including the credit swaps valued at almost $500 trillion, are still there and are still ready to crash our system. Meanwhile, people like you debate who is to blame for it all, when it truth it is a lot of both parties for allowing the financial markets to be able to screw up our system so bad by destroying legislation that held it in check, and even more blame to the financial whizzes, whose incredible greed this time truly broke the bank, and some of the blame on all of us, for thinking we could use our homes as banks, and that we could continually move our debt into the future with no consequence.
Here was my response:
Your two cents doesn’t seem to be worth very much. I guess it must be due to all the inflation Obama has given us with his trillions of dollars of debt and his policy of printing money (Obama spending $4.1 billion EVERY DAY vs. Bush’s $1.6 billion).
I don’t know if anybody has ever told you this, but it just so happens that there were Democrats around the whole time Reagan was president, the whole time Bush I was president, and the whole time Bush II was president. What is asinine of you is how you say Repbublicans are to blame now for all the economic woes when they’ve only controlled the House for what? five months plus a few days? But the Democrats weren’t to blame when they had total control of both the House and the Senate for the two years prior to the economy imploding in 2008. And of course the Democrats have had absolute power over the House, the Senate and the presidency SINCE 2008.
Obama had historic power and Democrats had historic control in 2009-10. Versus Bush, who had NO influence over a House and Senate that were BOTH heavily Democrat control the last two years of his presidency (you know, the period when everything went from pretty good to total crap). And what did we get from Democrats besides TRILLIONS in debt and a devastated economy that has been paralyzed with Obama’s failed leadership and reckless policies??? We didn’t even get a damn BUDGET from Democrats for two years. How is that not such a failure of responsibility that these Democrats of yours don’t belong in jail???
So your “We’ve only got problems because of Republican obstructionism” point runs into the snafu of the fact that we only had problems because of Democrat obstructionism THE REST OF THE TIME.
The Left now acts as if this never happened. For instance, in a recent television appearance, liberal commentator Bill Press argued that–rather than noisy disagreement–”Americans want discussion” on health-care reform. Who could disagree with that sentiment–except, perhaps, the Obama administration, which pushed Congress to rush through legislation by early August? This timeline was clearly aimed at preempting discussion and presenting the public with a “done deal” on health reform. As one protester put it, the president spent more time choosing a dog than he did discussing health-care reform.
Likewise, Mr. Press complained that opponents hadn’t put their own reform plans on the table. “The people who are there to protest–what are they for? Are they for the status quo? The Republicans haven’t put any other plan on the table.” But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?
So, if I’m supposed to feel boo-hoo-hoo and wah sorry for Democrats because of “Republican obstructionism,” allow me to simply politely suggest that you stick it in your ear or whatever orifice it fits into. Democrats were so obstructionist it was beyond unreal, and for you Democrats to whine about “obstructionism” now makes me realize that every single one of you is a pathological hypocrite. It’s really quite amazing, the unrelenting chutzpah you people have.
Harry Reid just got through tabling TWO House-passed Republican bills without even bothering to have a vote. He actually said of the first bill (the cut, cap and balance bill) that it was the worst legislation in the history of the republic. Because apparently he liked the Fugitive Slave Act his party once passed.
Now, you go on from one simply ridiculous point to another. You proceed to say, “You also neglect to mention the sorry state of the economy even at the point the Democrats took power.”
Well, let’s look at that. I’ll mention it, but I don’t think you’ll like it. Because I’ve got something called “facts.” Like I said, the Democrats took power over both the House and the Senate in the 2006 election. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were running things from January 2007 on. And to answer your question, the unemployment rate when they took over was 4.6%. I know, I know. Pretty bad. Good thing you Democrats were around to save us and send it to over 10% (and three years into Obama’s reign of terror it’s 9.2%). Good thing you Democrats were able to so successfully lead us to such incredibly pathetic ecomomic growth that we are likely to have a DOUBLE-DIP recession. And you know it’s that second scoop where all the fat, calories, misery and pain are, don’t you?
It is funny how simply unrelentingly dumb you liberals are determined to be. Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend TRILLIONS of dollars, and it’s Bush’s fault??? Of course it is. From NPR:
In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).
To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
Bush spent an average of $1.6 billion a day, for what it’s worth (and it ought to be worth A LOT compared to $5 billion a day).
For the record, Obama is spending TEN TIMES MORE – adjusted for inflation – to get us out of the “Great Recession” than FDR spent to try to get us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. And of course it doesn’t matter at all that both FDR and Obama spent MASSIVELY and both men utterly FAILED (here’s the skinny on FDR making the Great Depression last SEVEN YEARS longer than it should have. And now of course Obama is failing with the same Keynesian failed policies that FDR failed with). So your assertion that Obama had to spend all these trillions of dollars is a rather idiotic joke.
Your assertion, “… which necessitated a huge increase in spending the George Bush signed, because he knew that without that spending our economy was going down” is tantamount to your saying, “I am a rabid Keynesian ideologue. And no matter how many times this same stupid government spending idea fails, I’m going to cling to it like a rat clinging to a piece of wood on a sinking ship.” You won’t learn. You CAN’T learn.
I just wish you people WEREN’T hypocrites for just once in your lives, but Iike I said, it’s pathological with you people.
I can just quote myself refuting the same stupid argument from another liberal:
That said, your argument that Obama isn’t to blame because he was just fxing Bush’s mess might not be the statement of a totally dishonest and depraved vermin, but you refuse to give the same benefit of the doubt to Bush, don’t you?
Bill Clinton left George Bush with the massive Dotcom bubble collapse. That collapse that happened on Clinton’s watch wiped out 78% of the Nasdaq portfolio, and in fact vaporized more than 7.1 TRILLION DOLLARS in American wealth. And the ONLY reason we don’t talk about that – aside that too many in the media are just as biased and as stupid as you are, Smith – is that Clinton had also GUTTED the Pentegon and intelligence budget, leaving America both weak (Osama bin Laden called Clinton’s America “a paper tiger”) and blind. Clinton did to the CIA budget what he did to the Nasdaq – just wiped it out – and left us exposed to the 9/11 attack.
Osama bin Laden’s words in 1998 following the Clinton fiasco in Somalia where the US pulled out with its tail between its legs: “Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…”
Here’s a little more about how we have Bill Clinton to thank for the massive 9/11 attack to go on top of his massive DotCom bubble collapse:
Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”
In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.
Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”
The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.
“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “
After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.
“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”
And there’s the blindness that led to the 9/11 attack, combined with the fact that Clinton demonstrated to Osama bin Laden with the “Blackhawk Down” fiasco in Somalia that the U.S. was just “a paper tiger,” and ripe for a massive attack. That attack was planned, funded – and all the terrrorist assets were in the USA and even trained to fly in American pilot schools- during the Clinton misrule. Further, because of Clinton’s disastrous gutting of the military and intelligence budgets at the very time that Osama bin Laden was preparing to attack us, America was both weak (militarily unprepared for attack) and blind (unable to detect the attack).
Between the massive recession caused by the Dotcom bubble collapse that occurred under Clinton, and the 9/11 attack which was planned, organized and prepared completely under Clinton’s watch, the United States faced a HUGE hole as Bush took office.
So if you want to blame Bush for Obama’s mess, the least you could do would be to have the decency to blame Clinton for Bush’s mess. But you’re not honest enough to do that. Neither you, or your corrupt Democrat Party, or your mainstream media propaganda networks, have any integrity at all. Republicans took responsibility and admitted fault for their overspending. Democrats are like Cain in the Book of Genesis; they refuse to accept responsibility for anything no matter how guilty they are.
I also notice how you utterly fail to mention the gigantic role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the 2008 collapse:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by Democrats. It was perennially staffed with Democrats. It had the sole power to bundle mortgages into the “mortgage backed securites” and then sell those securities to the private market under the guise that they were government and therefore AAA. It got massively into subprime loans to literally piss into those mortgage backed securities even as it made it impossible to tell a good security from a bad one. It forced banks to make utterly STUPID loans that went belly-up.
Watch these videos to see that Fannie Mae was responsible, and Democrats were responsible for preventing ANY regulation at ALL on Fannie Mae: http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/video-proof-democrat-party-warned-responsible-for-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-economic-crisis-repost/
The mainstream media will never report the truth. They are biased, dishonest, corrupt propagandists. All we can do is keep presenting the facts in the only venue available that still accepts them.
So much of this “Obama saved us from going into a depression” nonsense was based on Keynesian assumptions which even the pro-European International Monetary Fund utterly rejects and in fact has debunked. Obama has been using a “mangled multiplier” as his basis for the need for more government spending. On Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s distorted view, for every dollar the federal government spends, we would get a $1.55 “bang for our buck.” But it isn’t true. And the disaster of Obama’s failed stimulus should prove that to any sentient creature. Unless you really think building tunnels for turtles, bridges to nowhere and studying cow flatulence is going to make America great. On the International Monetary Fund model, which just makes more sense in addition to being less ideologically biased, we only get back 70 cents for every dollar spent. See this article for the documentation on that, and check out this graph:
Obama has failed. He has failed badly. We are on the verge of a double dip recession that I suppose Obama will likewise blame on Bush even though it will be starting in the THIRD YEAR of Obama’s failed presidency.