It’s Bush’s Fault!

by

One of the complaints I hear is that Bush ruined the economy or Bush ballooned the national debt.

Both are untrue.

First, the economy. It wasn’t the potential election of President George W. Bush that lead to the economic crash in 2007-2008. No, it was when people realized that they might get a democrat, and especially Barack Obama, that foreign investment dried up and the rich went Galt on the economy. Had the potential future president echoed Bush’s stance on the economy, the economy would not have crashed because the value of companies would not have changed overnight.

Second, the debt and deficit. While President Bush’s spending in the last few years of office was inexcusable, it is pennies compared to what Barack Obama’s democrat congress has done. See here for a graph that lays this out in perfect detail.

Under Obama, the deficit and debt has skyrocketed

Notice the incontrovertible evidence.

One, although the deficit climbed in 2003 and 2004, this was due to the War in Iraq and a response to the debilitating effects of global terrorism. (See how the deficit increased in 2002? That was because the economy tanked when the twin towers fell.)

In 2005 and 2006, the economy began to recover, and even with the increased spending for Iraq, the deficit began to fall, hitting its bottom point in 2007, the first budget passed by the democrat congress with their mandate from the people to cut spending. (Remember 2006? Yeah, voters were majorly upset that Bush and the republicans couldn’t control spending and corruption, so they put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge.)

2008 saw a massive rise in the deficit, thanks to the democrat congress.

2009, the first year of the new presidency and the filibuster-proof democrat senate saw a massive increase in spending accompanied with a massive decrease in revenue. That leads to a massive deficit. To be honest, the only thing that kept the deficit from getting worse was the fact that there is no one in the world today willing to loan the US government money anymore.

2010, same story, except the economy wasn’t as paralyzed as it was in 2009 because republicans and a handful of democrats successfully stopped the worst parts of the democrat agenda. Yes, that’s rights—democrats had to vote with the republicans to stop the agenda. The democrats cannot blame the republicans for the fact that the agenda was frozen in 2010. They have to blame those defectors among themselves.

Really, I lie. The reason why the 2010 deficit is lower is because there was no budget written. That’s right, for the first time in the history of the United States, congress could not write and pass a budget.

Should we preserve Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, what do you think they and the Obama administration would do in 2011 and 2012?

The TEA Party is the only group of people who knows what we need to do. It’s actually very simple:

  1. STOP spending. FREEZE it and REDUCE the budget dramatically.
  2. STOP tax increases, and in fact, cut taxes across the board.
  3. STOP harmful regulations that destroy our economy for no helpful reason like Obamacare.

This year, you must vote the bums out. Elect anyone who doesn’t have a (D) next to their name. Focus in particular on those candidates who freely associate with the TEA Party but especially, actually stand for limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, and less regulation.

There are three candidates locally whom deserve your vote:

  1. Dick Muri
  2. Tony Moore
  3. Jon Higley

In our state, be sure to vote for Dino Rossi. Even though he doesn’t run around claiming to be part of the TEA Party, he has already demonstrated through his legislative activities as senate majority leader in the Washington State Senate that he can cut spending and taxes and work with democrats to see it actually happen.

Let me tell you a story, a very important story.

Dino Rossi was senate majority leader as the republican senate in our state was evaporating. He lead a very slim majority with a democratic governor, Gary Locke, who, like every other democrat, couldn’t find a wasteful program that he didn’t like.

Dino Rossi had a problem. The state was running out of money. He had options.

  1. Raise taxes. Gov. Locke would love that.
  2. Deficit spending through financial trickery. Gov. Locke would love that as well. (Just look at what Gregoire and gang has done!)
  3. Maintain spending or cut programs, and lower taxes slightly, and convince Gov. Locke it is in his best interests.

Guess what he did? That’s right. He did #3. He actually sat down with Gov. Locke’s team of accountants and lawyers and went through every program, cutting the ones that weren’t necessary and preserving the ones that were actually important. Then he took the savings and delivered incremental tax cuts for the people of Washington State. Gov. Locke signed the budget, and everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, was happy.

We need people like Dino Rossi in the senate. We need him more than the enthusiastic TEA Party supporters because Dino Rossi knows how to get things done.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “It’s Bush’s Fault!”

  1. tensor Says:

    The federal budget for fiscal year 2001 was the last one signed by President Bill Clinton. While the Bush administration’s abject failure to prevent 9/11 did damage to our economy, the Republican Congress and President Bush had, by then, already squandered the surplus President Clinton had bequeathed to us.

    Are you unaware of the housing crisis? That hit home at the very end of the Bush administration, precipitating the bail-out he signed. The candidacy of Senator Obama had nothing to do with it. If you have evidence of anyone “going Galt”, please present it.

    although the deficit climbed in 2003 and 2004, this was due to the War in Iraq…

    For which a majority of Republicans in Congress voted, and for which President Bush had demanded. It was the Republican’s fault, pure and simple.

    …first time in the history of the United States, congress could not write and pass a budget.

    Except this was standard operating procedure for the Republican Congresses of the early 2000’s.

    By comparison, your grasp of recent history makes you look like a Ph.D. in thermodynamics.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      (1) The budgets that Bill Clinton signed were written by the Republican congress. Remember 1994?

      (2) The housing crisis was not only predicted by President Bush and several republican congressmen, but one of their top priorities. People like Barney Frank and the democratic leadership stood in the way of the administration and others trying to fix the mess that was unfolding.

      (3) The Iraq War was supported, overwhelmingly, by democrats too. The entire nation wanted it. When it came up for a vote, there was little dissent.

      (4) Yes, the Republicans from 2000-2006 were spending like crazy. I remember making phone calls for candidates in 2006 and having republicans tell me they wanted to see the republicans out of congress. However, the spending now is a new level of crazy that makes the corrupt republicans from 200-2006 seem like amateurs.

  2. demo kid Says:

    The fact you blindly ignore with your chart there is that there was no good reason for the Bush years to run a deficit. Perhaps for 2001-2002, sure… there was a downturn that needed to be considered. However, deficits are meant to be run in lean times, and surpluses accumulated in strong times. There’s no practical reason why there should have been a deficit there, other than for two wars (one of which we really didn’t need to fight).

    Likewise, according to Republican/conservative “fiscal responsibility” tax cuts are good when times are good AND times are bad. Poppycock. That’s half the reason why we have a problem to begin with: politicians are unwilling to defund programs that are not needed (including the military) and are unable to raise taxes to actually fund them. It is the issue at play in California, where spending was increased and revenue sources were kneecapped, and ignorant voters in the middle were willing to go along with both camps. It’s the issue in play here as well: the money that went towards fighting in Iraq should have been directed towards paying down the debt.

    Putting your blind libertarian fundamentalism for a moment, I’m sure that you’ll agree that the solution is clear: politicians and their constituents need to be comfortable with balancing funding and expenditures in the long-term. Rainy-day funds should be the order of the day to balance out fluctuations in the budget over time, and Democrats and Republicans need to fight their natures BOTH to reduce spending in key areas and increase funding for those areas to pay for what is needed.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      “Perhaps 2001-2002 there was a downturn…” Yeah, perhaps, when major financial companies DISAPPEAR OVERNIGHT, the economy responds, how shall we say, NEGATIVELY. The economy was DEVASTATED after those planes hit the twin towers. Thousands of people, experts in their profession, were dead, their data and jobs and money with them.

      You’re talking Keynesian claptrap. Even Keynes admitted that his model was incorrect near the end of his life. Please, no serious economist for the past 20 years has advocated Keynesian economic policy.

      The solution IS clear: Neuter Obama’s power grab with a republican congress dominated by fiscal conservative congressmen who actually admit that there is a document called a constitution that actually has an entire section devoted to what the government can and cannot do.

      I am SO surprised that after two years of seeing YOUR freedoms taken way and handed to Wall Street and big labor unions, you’re still supporting the FAILED economic policies of Barack Obama. Wasn’t he supposed to end war? Wasn’t he supposed to solve all economic problems? NOTHING he has promised has happened. In fact, whatever Bush has done, Obama has done 20 times WORSE.

  3. tensor Says:

    (1) The budgets that Bill Clinton signed were written by the Republican congress. Remember 1994?

    The budgetary priorities were set by the Democratic Congresses of 1993 and 1994, yes. Newt Gingrich, en route to resigning over impeachment, tried to change these priorities, and President Clinton vetoed that attempt.

    (2) The housing crisis was not only predicted by President Bush and several republican congressmen, but one of their top priorities. People like Barney Frank and the democratic leadership stood in the way of the administration and others trying to fix the mess that was unfolding/

    Utterly false, although your cheap shot at Barney Frank (he’s a liberal AND openly gay, he must be a bad person!!1!) seems pretty silly. Show us some evidence that Bush took any action, or even made any statement, indicating that he so much as recognized a problem.

    (3) The Iraq War was supported, overwhelmingly, by democrats too. The entire nation wanted it. When it came up for a vote, there was little dissent

    You’re now 0-3, and this was a very easy one to get right. Even wikipedia shows the House Democrats voting 126 against the Authorization for Use of Military Force, with only 82 voting in favor. Over in the Senate, a small majority of Democrats supported it, 29-21. As for “overwhelming support”, that came from the Republicans, whose fault the war is. They voted 215-6 for it in the House, and 48-1 for it in the Senate.

    Even without the count, showing how one-sided the situation was, you should recall Dr. Jim McDermott standing atop a mosque in Baghdad in late 2002, stating his belief that President Bush would mislead the American people. How’d that search for Saddam’s WMD work out? Do you admire Dr. McDermott for getting it so right?

    As far as Americans supporting it, there were large demonstrations against it across the country, including thousands of anti-war signs at the 2003 MLK King Day Parade in Seattle; Mayor Nickels personally led that parade, and carried an anti-war sign.

    (4) Yes, the Republicans from 2000-2006 were spending like crazy. I remember making phone calls for candidates in 2006 and having republicans tell me they wanted to see the republicans out of congress. However, the spending now is a new level of crazy that makes the corrupt republicans from 200-2006 seem like amateurs.

    So, your party wallowed in corruption, and refused to enact the policies you advocate, so your solution is to elect more of them? Wow, how uplifting. Good luck winning elections with that program.

    And, please learn the difference between blowing stuff up and building stuff. The Republicans spent our money on the former in the period you were working to elect more of them; the current spending is to build needed stuff, like a new bridge to South Park in Seattle.

    I am SO surprised that after two years of seeing YOUR freedoms taken way and handed to Wall Street and big labor unions, you’re still supporting the FAILED economic policies of Barack Obama. Wasn’t he supposed to end war? Wasn’t he supposed to solve all economic problems? NOTHING he has promised has happened. In fact, whatever Bush has done, Obama has done 20 times WORSE.

    First, having some money allocated does not constitute “taking away freedoms”, and as noted above, at least we’re getting SOMETHING for it, other than dead and wounded soldiers. Second, yes, President Obama is cleaning up the miserable failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that YOUR President Bush needlessly caused and left. (Since you obviously missed it, we’ve removed all of our soldiers from Iraq.) Third, quote where I, or any liberal, for that matter, EVER said anything even remotely like “Obama will solve all of our economic problems.” Paul Krugman, on his way to winning the Nobel Prize in Economics, publicly faulted President Obama for not doing more, specifically spending more money on the economic stimulus YOU oppose.

    As far as Obama being “20 times worse”, I suggest you provide some figures for that lie. Good luck.

    Could you please do the only thing you can do to improve our country? Burn your voter registration card. You can spout whatever FOX talking points you want here, without my opposition, if you would just do that. Thanks in advance.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Look, it’s up to you whether you want to believe lies or not. The evidence is out there.

      (1): The budgets were written by the house. It’s in the constitution. Whatever priorities the democrats set were irrelevant. Besides, the graphs clearly show things were getting worse with the dems in charge.

      (2): http://lornakismet.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/obama-lies-bush-saw-the-meltdown-coming-and-the-dems-ignored-him/ Note the FACTS that Fox News cite. President Bush warned about the housing crash in 2001, his first year in office. Who stood in the way the entire time? Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Barack Obama.

      (3): Polls at the time had the Iraq War as a high priority. That is undeniable. Even the democrats, those who vote for democrats, were in support of it. Besides, the vote at the time was irrelevant, given that congress had already authorized Bush to invade Iraq or any other country harboring terrorists.

      (4) That’s the point. Kick out the bad ones, bring in some new ones. You don’t go around supporting incumbents, no matter what party, if they refuse to represent their constituents. That’s why the primaries saw so many solid republicans fall to the new Tea Party candidates. If the democrats supported limited government, as opposed to a government unconstrained by the constitution or any form of morality, then I would vote for them if they were the better choice.

      Krugman is an idiot. No one believes anything he says anymore, as he can’t even agree with his own textbook. He is the one economist out there spouting the garbage that spending and debt is the way to get rich. If that were so, we’d have millions of millionaires running around our country since they’ve maxed out their credit cards. Zimbabwe should’ve surpassed the US as a superpower since they’ve been spending they don’t have nor ever will have for quite a while now.

      Face it, no serious economist believes in Keynesian economics anymore. You can’t spend your way to wealth. Wealth is created by individual transactions, not government programs.

      Obama is 20 times worse because 20 times more people are out of work than otherwise would have been had we started the fiscal sanity he promised. Whatever happened to going through every federal program with a fine-toothed comb, with balancing the budget, pay-as-you-go, and no tax increases for the middle class? Whatever happened to reforming the medical industry to bring in accountability? What about sane regulation of Wall Street? If he had followed half of his own campaign pledges, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in.

      Instead, all he’s done is transferred money from our children to his cronies. He stole GM from the debtors and gave it to the unions. He’s bought and paid for every failed bank on Wall Street at our expense. He’s covered up real voter intimidation at the polls, and poo-poo’d an organization who FUNDS CHILD PROSTITUTION!

      Could you please do the only thing you can do to improve our country? Burn your voter registration card. You can spout whatever FOX talking points you want here, without my opposition, if you would just do that. Thanks in advance.

      So now you want to take away my suffrage?

      Why the vitriol? Did I strike a nerve? Does the truth hurt that much?

      What does FOX News have to do with anything? If they are wrong about something, you are free to point it out. But attacking the messenger is a logical fallacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: