Why Conservatives Get Paranoid About Obama (Update: Instalink!)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: Instalink! Sweet!
So Hot Air got a lot of attention yesterday by playing an old video of Barack Obama declaring that it was actually unpatriotic of Bush to have added $4 Trillion to the Debt in about eight years (remembering that Obama has already added that much to the debt in less than four). Go ahead, click on the image and take a gander:
(Link.) Now my first reaction was snark—to think this would make a funny “Before Black Presidents” swipe. Something like, “#BeforeBlackPresidents Barack Obama thought it was unpatriotic to add $4 T to the debt.” (Okay, maybe not funny, but oh well…)
But then I thought to myself, what more perfect example could there possibly be about why many conservatives get paranoid about Obama? I mean since Obama has become president conservatives have often wondered: is he really this bad at his job, or is he some kind of evil genius trying to intentionally frak up this country?
Now, consider this syllogism.
1. An unpatriotic act is one that unjustifiably harms this country.
2. Obama has declared that adding $4 Trillion to the debt was an unpatriotic act.
3. As President, Obama has added $4 Trillion to the debt.
4. Therefore Obama is knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably engaging in conduct that harms this country.
Now, tell the truth liberals, is there anything at all unreasonable about that syllogism? No.
But there is a reason why that syllogism fails, because there is a hidden premise in it. Let’s call it step 2.5 and insert it back into my syllogism:
1. An unpatriotic act is one that unjustifiably harms this country.
2. Obama has declared that adding $4 Trillion to the debt was an unpatriotic act.
2.5 Obama actually means what he said.
3. As President, Obama has added $4 Trillion to the debt.
4. Therefore Obama is knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably engaging in conduct that harms this country.
And as far as I can see, that is the only logical defense to the charge that the President is knowingly and willfully harming this country: that he is a cheeseball politician willing to say one thing to be elected and to do another once he actually has power.
But when he behaves this shamelessly and other people conclude that he is harming this country on purpose, he has no one to blame for it but himself. Which, if he was less shameless, he would recognize.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
You’re trying too hard.
There’s a much simpler explanation. Obama, like politicians and pundits on both sides, says whatever he thinks will score political points at the time, and regardless of whether that position is inconsistent with positions taken previously or in the future.
Other examples of Obama include his call for civility… while using incendiary rhetoric of his own.
And a non-Obama example: a Washington Post columnist claimed (alleged) GOP opposition to extending the payroll tax cut amounts to a tax hike… which is directly at odds with his argument last year that letting the Bush tax cuts lapse was NOT a tax hike.
steve (369bc6) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:08 amDo politicians stand up on the stump and say stuff they know is untrue in order to get elected?
Yes, both Democrats and Republicans.
The difference is, Republicans hope against hope that their guy will actually do what he says he’ll do, while Democrats know full well that their guy is lying through his teeth in order to “appeal to the middle” and sneak their extremist agenda into reach of the levers of power.
That’s the difference.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:08 amExample of above:
Democrat says: “Nobody is suggesting that the Healthcare Bill will cover illegal immigrants.”
Democrats hear: “Of course, we actually do want to cover illegal immigrants in the healthcare bill, because we want the votes we think this will generate. But we can’t say so, since it doesn’t poll well with anybody except the relatives of illegal immigrants; so, you know, wink wink, keep saying that.”
Republicans: “Dude, you said that our loud! We can hear you!”
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:22 amAnyone who argues against the proposition needs a Weather Man to know which way the wind blows.
ropelight (70002f) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:23 amThe left rebuttal will always be, “It’s all Bush’s fault.”
Thus, they will assert that the $4B under Obama really just brings the Bush total to $8B.
And, w/o all those jobs Obama “saved,” it would have been even worse.
jim2 (2328fe) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:23 amThis tracks with Obambi’s crass political opportunism over the debt ceiling. Compare and contrast his failure of leadership speech to his actual lack of leadership over the issue when he is in charge. He admitted his prior position was nothing but partisan sniping.
JD (822109) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:45 amPious gave a perfect example. We can hear you!
JD (0d2ffc) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:47 am“politician willing to say one thing to be elected and to do another once he actually has power” Not to excuse BHO at all, but aren’t all politicians like that? Can anybody think of one or two examples of pols who didn’t do that?
Put not your faith in princes.
gp (72be5d) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:49 amHere’s a counter example:
Republican: “I believe that one of the primary duties of the Federal government is protection of our borders. Our southern border is porous and insecure, and I think that more efforts should be made to secure it.”
Republicans hear: “ditto”
Democrats hear: “Blah blah blah, I’m a big racist who fears people who aren’t like me and especially Mexicans but I can’t say that so I’ll make up some blather about border security and blow on my dog whistle and my people will understand what I’m really saying.”
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:55 amHe has never experienced true executive power and responsibility until elevation to the Presidency which explains his deferral to The Hill when it came time to write his signature initiatives of the Stimulus, and HealthCare.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:01 amThe only experience he can fall back onto is what he was taught in his Marxist catechism going back to Frank Marshall, and continuing through Harvard Law, which has unwaveringly lead him down the wrong path (at least wrong for the country, at large) and hindered the economic system that we have, and the Marxists hate.
It’s a combination of inherent ideology, and basic incompetence – the worst of two worlds.
PA, those are two great arguments.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:06 amThe problems arise for the political class (and their sycophants in the punditry) when confronted with someone who says what he means, and means what he says – who, in this cycle, seems to be most prominently, Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.
Don’t you see that when Bush added $4 trillion to the debt, it was unpatriotic. But Obama has added $4 trillion to the debt for completely patriotic reasons.
Chuck Bartowski (e84e27) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:33 amChuck – I disagree. It was wrong and unpresidential of Obama to call himself unpatriotic.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:38 amSir,
It isn’t a syllogism it is a sorites.
regards,
mysterian1729 (0f0e9f) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:45 amAaron writes,— “he has no one to blame for it but himself. Which, if he was less shameless, he would recognize.”
There’s your problem Aaron. If Obama has no one to blame but himself, well then he’s not going to assign any blame. That is if The Bamster were intellectually honest. But then he’s not, so there’s always someone else to blame–and by golly he does just that.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:51 amI find this ongoing effort to restore civility and comity between the diverse political factions re: Urkel a bit reactionary.
As tho revealing to Krauthammer, via some psychoanalytic etiology, how he could have been taken in so thoroughly.
That train has departed the station and now barrels down dirt roads.
Privileged street kid, con-artist, radical Marxist, Narcissist, layabout, anti-American Nihilist,…, they’re all legion and resident.
Deal with it Amerikkka.
gary gulrud (790d43) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:55 amAlinsky’s Sorcerer’s Apprentice, is the way I have phrased it.
ian cormac (0bd903) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:55 amParanoid does not feel like the right word, nut I don’t have any suggestions for what does feel right.
JD (0d2ffc) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:28 amNut?! But …
JD (0d2ffc) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:32 amAgree, esp with steve, PA, AD.
As steve says, Aaron you’re trying too hard to use this example as a reason for conservatives being “paranoid” (we’ll come back to this). This is simply an example, as others note, of saying things to score political points at the moment with no thought of actually holding true to any policy position.
Paranoia is a fear without basis. There is plenty of basis to the opinion that Obama is of the more radical left and thinks what is good for the United States is to shirk the responsibility of a world power and domestically be more socialistic. This view would claim that he is not so much trying to “undermine the US” as he sees it, but to make the US a more just society. For those who do not share his basic view, it does indeed look like he is trying to undermine the US, because he is trying to undermine aspects of historic US characteristics.
It may be that the view I described is wrong, in any number of ways, but I don’t think it is paranoid, except to those being intellectually dishonest.
If an NFL quarterback thinks there are people on the opposing team who would be happy to put him out of the game, he is not paranoid. If he thinks the opposing players have shanks to stab him when he is down, then he’s (probably) paranoid. If one thinks Obama is weakening the military and economic power of the US to make it easier for Martians to invade, that’s probably paranoid.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:33 amhttp://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/08/25/msnbc-blames-conservative-israelis-no-peace-frets-over-dangerous-chri
ian cormac (0bd903) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:34 amJ Street does not speak for me, or for any Jew I know.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:42 amWhere is this $4T Obama added to the debt you’re talking about?
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:55 amI agree with JD, paranoid is not the right term, but I know exactly what is the correct terminology.
Why conservatives get ‘pissed off’ at Obama.
Owain (f1a217) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:57 amhe’s repulsive
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:58 amA blizzard of lies from spurty soon to follow …
JD (85b089) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:01 amGood news, everybody, huwza, huwza’
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44270321
ian cormac (0bd903) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:02 am_________________________________________________
4. Therefore Obama is knowingly, intentionally, and unjustifiably engaging in conduct that harms this country.
Once again, keep in mind that he sat in a church for almost 20 years listening to the fiery, anti-US rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright. Not only was Obama not turned off by such commentary, he chose Wright to be a close adviser.
Mark (411533) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:02 amWhere is this $4T Obama added to the debt you’re talking about?
Comment by Spartacvs — 8/25/2011 @ 8:55 am
It’s gone, spurty. It’s gone.
Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:10 amParanoid?
SpartacBS shut up.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:11 amI have come through experience not to believe anything Obama says. Fisking his speeches for their numerous lies and half-truths is a rewarding exercise.
Is believing that Obama is going to constantly lie to me paranoia? It is reality.
I don’t like that reality and the fact that large segments of America don’t see the lies and may allow him to continue to damage our country. Is that paranoia or reality?
The above are definitely not phobias. Define your terms.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:11 amHAHAHAHAHAAHA
Ohhhh that’s nice.
It’s more than $4t since he was a Senator voting to spend spend spend since the deficit really exploded in 2007. But as President, Obama has the worst deficit record in American history, and more than twice as bad as Bush’s unimpressive record.
But just deny deny deny. Demand proof after it’s proven. Hope against hope some idiot things this is in controversy.
That’s the only way to remain a democrat today.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:15 am“Where is this $4T Obama added to the debt you’re talking about?”
Spvrty – The debt is right here at this link.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:20 amcheap Demogague with a really poor memory, and not too bright
EricPWJohnson (2925ff) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:21 amIs #23 really Sparticles? or is it a sock puppet?
That sounds EXACTLY like something that Yelverton would say.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:42 amComment by ian cormac — 8/25/2011 @ 9:02 am
If he’d have done this two-years ago, we just might be feeling the effect of it today since it generally takes a min of 18-months for a govt program to show up in the economy.
The Guy, and his Gang, are totally clueless, or working to goals inimical to what America is.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:43 amNice to see gp drop by to spout the “everybody does it” defense.
Maybe everybody that he votes for does it.
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:44 amComment by EricPWJohnson — 8/25/2011 @ 9:21 am
Yeah, that pretty much describes spvrty, and his demi-god-upon-the-potomic.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:46 amIcy Texan, how did I get on your sh!t list? I’m not defending anybody, I just think AW’s premise is shaky. Can you think of one or two pols who governed as they campaigned? Usually they don’t.
gp (72be5d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:01 amgp, that’s very difficult, as “no plan survives first contact with the enemy”!
GW campaigned against “nation building”, but became one in the aftermath of 9/11, as he himself notes in the upcoming National Geographic monologue.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:05 amWay to gloss over the fact W launched an unnecessary and costly war on the back of 9/11 against a country with no connection to the events of 9/11.
Spartacvs (2d9449) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:16 amSpurty,
You have officially forfeited the right to call ANYONE ignorant. Google is your friend on this.
Aaron Worthing (109425) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:16 amWhat’s that about pots and kettles?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:18 amBut, associating pots and kettles with spvrty would be an insult to pots and kettles.
Oh…and notice the moving of the goal posts…
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:19 amagain, as always.
Way to gloss over the fact that the Global War on Terrorism isn’t only about 9/11. Way to gloss over the fact that Iraq was providing money, shelter, and logistical aid to global terrorist organizations. Way to show, once again, how stupid you are.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:31 amActually, it’s not $4 trillion yet (although he’s working on it).
In the spring of 2009, Obama signed an additional $400 billion in spending into law–this was on top of the FY 2009 spending that Bush had signed off on.
Since October 1 of 2009, the government has racked up $2.729 trillion in debt, according to the debt to the penny charts on the Treasury’s web site. Add in the other $400 billion, and we’ve got over $3.1 trillion in debt that has been added under his watch.
For FY 2011, we’re currently on pace for about $1.25 trillion; we’ll see if this trend holds through the rest of the year, as the debt ramped up by $300 billion just this month, but stayed fairly steady through July.
Altogether, by the end of the fiscal year Obama will have accounted for about $3.3 trillion in debt, which includes FY 2010, FY 2011 and the extra $400 billion he signed off on in early CY 2009(since it was pure deficit spending by that point).
The $4 trillion number likely comes from his first day in office, and while technically he could have reduced that by cutting government spending right off the bat, techically speaking that was Bush’s budget from FY 2009.
Of course, the “See, he doesn’t suck as bad as people are saying!” argument doesn’t really fly when he’s on track to spend over $5 trillion in four years.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:31 amWay to gloss over the fact W launched an unnecessary and costly war on the back of 9/11 against a country with no connection to the events of 9/11.
Obama could have pulled all the troops out of Iraq beginning the first day he came into office. So why are we still spending money over there?
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:33 amNow, Aaron, this is how Fificvs rolls: he makes his profound pronouncements, gets called on it, argues without facts, someone finally buries him in data, and then he runs off to post in another thread.
Dishonest from the word go. Heck, I’m still waiting for him to own his silly statement that none of the Founders ever opposed or fought against slavery. Remember that one? And he has never responded to that; this is why I think he is either deeply stupid or a performance artist.
And I remind you, he has more than once stated that people who post things that are incorrect should apologize.
Not a smart troll.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:34 amComment by Another Chris — 8/25/2011 @ 11:31 am
Except, the only appropriations bills for non-defense spending signed by GWB were continueing resolutions maintaining spending at 2008 levels.
After the inauguration, President Obama signed appropriation bills for the non-defense part of the govt at levels that GWB had threatened to veto (which is why the Pelosi/Reid Congress never presented him with such bills). Those new bills expanded what was being spent beyond the 2009 Budget Levels.
For all intents and purposes, 95-99% of the FY-2009 deficit, is the deficit of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Congress, and has minimal relationship to the Bush Administration.
Also, in #46, you forgot to carry a one…
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:46 am“…Obama will have accounted for about $3.3 trillion in debt…”
that should be $4.3T, as you were adding this years’ $1.3T deficit to the previous years’ $3.1T accumulated deficit.
So why are we still spending money over there?
Why do we keep cops on the beat when crime stats are so low?
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:48 amIcy Texan, how did I get on your sh!t list? I’m not defending anybody, I just think AW’s premise is shaky. Can you think of one or two pols who governed as they campaigned? Usually they don’t.
Comment by gp — 8/25/2011 @ 11:01 am
— Ya know what? You whined just like this the last time I criticized one of your comments. If you’re gonna come around here, wear a cup.
Sorry, but I’m simply not going to accept the “they ALL talk out of both sides of their mouths” argument. I hate absolutist statements!
Icy Texan (331b90) — 8/25/2011 @ 11:58 amThere are some pro-life libertarians
The pro-choice libertarian position is that a fetus is not a human being, and therefore abortion should be legal. While I disagree with their premise, their conclusion is consistent with the rest of libertarian philosophy.
I’m a registered Libertarian (you might say that I don’t belong to an organized political party), and I am pro-life.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 8/25/2011 @ 12:33 pmThose new bills expanded what was being spent beyond the 2009 Budget Levels.
That’s the $400 billion I was referring to.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-10/politics/senate.spending.bill_1_spending-bill-future-appropriations-earmarks?_s=PM:POLITICS
Also, in #46, you forgot to carry a one…
From the Treasury’s Debt to the Penny charts:
October 1, 2009: $11.920 trillion
August 25, 2011: $14.649 trillion
Delta: $2.729 trillion
Plus Addl $400 billion: $3.129 trillion through August 25th; for the $3.3 trillion figure, I took the FY 2011 average thus far and calculated it out to 12 months.
There will be a deficit of about $1.25 trillion for FY 2011, according to the trends from the Debt to the Penny charts–around $400 billion less than last year, but that is probably due to 1) stimulus spending that has dried up; and 2) drawdown activities in Iraq. The employment to population ratio is still in the dumps, so it’s not like the government is collecting any more revenue that it was before.
The FICA cuts are only relevant in relation to the cumulative shortfall for Social Security obligations thus far, if any.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/25/2011 @ 12:59 pmSo, Aaron’s conclusion is that either Obama is knowingly and willfully harming the country, or he’s a cheeseball politician, who said what he had to say in order to get elected (and who will do the same again for the ’12 election).
I’d have to go with Door #1. Obama knows exactly what he is doing. We were sold a pack of lies by the Leftist media, which still has a schoolgirl’s crush on The One. Obama the brilliant constitutional law professor – except he was never a professor – he was a lecturer – and he never got published in the HLR, with the exception of a “case comment”, which didn’t list his name as author. Obama, the editor of Harvard Law Review – except he was actually one of 80 editors – never THE editor – instead he was elected President of HLR, which is like being voted Prom Queen.
Obama, the celebrated, insightful, gifted author of two books? Hardly. Most likely Bill Ayers, our own domestic terrorist, wrote the first & Jon Favreau the second. Sound crazy? Read Jack Cashill’s “Deconstructing Obama”. Cashill’s no wild-eyed conspiracy theorist – he just does excellent research. Too bad, BTW, that the WashComPost & the NYT sent reporters to Alaska to scrutinize Gov Palin’s 24,000 emails, yet couldn’t spare any resources to dig up Obama’s college transcripts.
Why didn’t Obama have his transcripts released? Perhaps because they’d show he’d taken classes at Columbia from none other than Frances Fox Piven – of Cloward & Piven fame. Some accounts do have him attending the Socialist Workers’ conferences (in NYC), where Piven spoke. Now what was Cloward & Piven’s theory? If you can’t get the dumb redneck bitter clingin’ populace to vote for socialism – then you must get them hooked on it anyway. Like heroin – if your vic won’t voluntarily shoot up – do it for them – they’ll be hooked. Overburden the government by massively increasing dependence on entitlement programs – the economic system will collapse – orchestrate chaos – people will beg – beg – for milk for their children – presto! de facto socialist government.
Cheat sheet of Cashill’s articles at American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/jack_cashill/
Obama is an outright fraud:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_obama_lie_that_drove_the_b.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/why_uks_daily_mail_got_cold_feet_on_dreams_fraud.html
So what’s my point? That the deceit required to keep the truth about Obama out of the mainstream press indicates a truly evil agenda. To dismiss Obama as incompetent & naive – or even just politically manipulative, is to fail to acknowledge the deep trouble our country is in. Obama & Sunstein & Jarret will NOT relinquish power without a horrific battle for the American voter. Decent, kind people always underestimate the power of evil.
Miranda (4104db) — 8/25/2011 @ 1:31 pmComment by Another Chris — 8/25/2011 @ 12:59 pm
(recent additions to U.S.Public Debt-Wiki)…
FY-2009…$1.887T;
FY-2010…$1.653T;
FY-2011…$1.33T(est, CBO)
Now, that adds up to $4.87T
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8ef02d) — 8/25/2011 @ 2:55 pm(recent additions to U.S.Public Debt-Wiki)…
FY-2009…$1.887T;
FY-2010…$1.653T;
FY-2011…$1.33T(est, CBO)
Sorry, but Obama was not responsible for signing off on all of FY 2009’s debt. Bush submitted a FY 2009 budget for $3.1 trillion, based on FY 2008 spending levels, as you mentioned,
Unfortunately, receipts for FY 2009 were only $2.1 trillion.
The new bills you cited were all a part of the FY 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill that Obama signed in March 2009, which added another $410 billion in deficit spending.
That leaves $1 trillion in debt that Bush signed off on, and $410 billion that Obama signed off on for FY 2009.
Furthermore, the FY 2009 budget that Bush submitted didn’t count additional appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan–that’s where the additional $400 billion on the FY 2009 debt figure you cited comes from. Since these bills occurred on both Obama and Bush’s watch, I didn’t assign it exclusively to either’s ledger–I was concerned with spending that could be directly connected to either/or.
Other than the GWOT issue, my figures still stand. Obama may have voted for the FY 2009 budget as a Senator, but it’s disingenuous to imply that Bush didn’t have the final say on it when it was HIS budget that was approved in both houses of Congress, and the spending bill was sent to his desk for signature.
As I mentioned earlier, the economy began tanking in 2008, so the assumed tax receipts that Bush’s team anticipated never materialized (it was thought that there would be a $400 billion deficit at the time of submission); Obama doesn’t have the luxury of that unknown factor because he knows damn well people aren’t working (and thus, can’t pay taxes) and has been spending like crazy anyway.
No wonder Congress never pushed through a budget the last two years–who wants to tell their constituents “Uh, yeah, I guess I did vote for a budget that increased our debt over $1 trillion.”
Another Chris (c983db) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:04 pmDid Bush sign that budget, or Obama?
JD (d48c3b) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:21 pmThe democrats voted heavily in favor. Obama signed it.
Dustin (b7410e) — 8/25/2011 @ 5:43 pmNot a syllogism. A syllogism is:
A = B
B = C
therefore, A = C.
Or even:
A = B
B = C
C = D
A = D.
The first three points, even differently arranged, do not produce a syllogism.
I Love Syllogisms (0da851) — 8/25/2011 @ 6:16 pmAnd if they had passed Bush’s budget, you might have a point. However, Pelosi and Reid did not.
JD (318f81) — 8/25/2011 @ 7:30 pmAnd if they had passed Bush’s budget, you might have a point. However, Pelosi and Reid did not.
Blaming Pelosi and Reid for passing the budget that Bush submitted, and then passing the Omnibus bill that Obama then signed, doesn’t change the math.
You need to learn to deal with the fact that Bush signed a budget that ended up being $1 trillion over tax receipts. This white-knighting for the guy is ridiculous.
Another Chris (c983db) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:35 pmComment by Dustin — 8/25/2011 @ 5:43 pm
That’s “supplemental appropriations”–that’s not the FY 2009 budget.
Another Chris (c983db) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:36 pm“You need to learn to deal with the fact that Bush signed a budget that ended up being $1 trillion over tax receipts.”
Another Chris – When did Bush sign that budget?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:42 pm“on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.””
Another Chris – Is the above what you are talking about, the budget Republicans overwhelmingly rejected and Obama voted in favor of, the one he is trying to blame on Bush? Seriously?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:48 pmWhen the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 8:52 pmAnother Chris – Obama even publicly praised the passage of that Democrat budget in 2008. To come back later and try to blame Bush for starting his administration in the hole is par for the course for Obama’s hypocrisy:
March 14
Obama Statement on the Senate’s Passage of the FY 2009 Budget
Washington DC — Sen. Obama today released a statement on the Senate’s passage of the FY 2009 Federal Budget:
“In Illinois and throughout the country, Americans share common hopes and common struggles. They are worried about keeping their jobs and being able to pay record gas prices and stay ahead of their mortgages and credit card bills and still have enough left over to make ends meet. They want to know that they’ll have health care when they get sick – not just for themselves, but for their children and elderly parents. They want to know that a quality education and a college degree are within reach for all Americans. They want to retire with security and dignity. And they want to know that our government is doing everything it can to keep our nation safe and secure.
“The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. After years of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, this year’s budget helps restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, and provides tax relief for the middle class and low-income families who need help most. It includes an expansion in the Child Tax Credit that I have fought for and makes marriage penalty relief permanent. And it rejects the President’s drastic cuts in important domestic programs.
“We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about. I commend Chairman Conrad for his extraordinary leadership in moving this resolution forward and moving America’s fiscal policies in the right direction.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/28/mccain-said-blame-it-bush-when-obama-claimed-he-inherited-deficit#ixzz1W6W4A5wc
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:02 pmBlaming Pelosi and Reid for passing the budget that Bush submitted,
They did not pass his budget. They passed theirs. And Barcky signed it.
JD (318f81) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:22 pm==Obama even publicly praised the passage of that Democrat budget in 2008. To come back later and try to blame Bush for starting his administration in the hole is par for the course for Obama’s hypocrisy==
Of course if we had a competent and honest press corps Obama would not be allowed to get away with that hypocrisy when he spouts such obvious and easily refuted lies.
elissa (c01b9b) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:36 pmIt’s not like Bush’s budget was balanced either, Another Chris. But it’s not really fair to say the FY 2009 budget is Bush’s doing. It’s Obama’s doing. He is responsible for it.
That doesn’t get Bush off the hook. But at least he had budgets to be judged by.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:47 pmI know I’ve seen a graph of the yearly deficit under Bush. It made a big leap after the Dems took over in Congress. The deficit was much larger in 2007 and 2008 than it had been the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, and I seem to recall “those military excursions of his” had started long before 07.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2011 @ 9:55 pmObama’s lack of records could be explained by the statement that We have been taken over by an alien.
BTW, where is Valerie Jarrett? She is so behind the curtain, yet she is one of his real puppet masters…
stuck in the matrix (285169) — 8/26/2011 @ 6:08 amNo, no, it’s much simpler than that:
1. If a president did something that f%^&#d up the economy this bad, he could claim he was stupid and didn’t know any better.
wdk535 (cfef89) — 8/26/2011 @ 6:31 am2. Libs assure us 0’s a genius.
3. Therefore, he must have done it on purpose.
If we assume the premise that he is a truly stupid man but shines at reading the teleprompter, is it possible that he reads his lines, whatever they may be, with absolutely no comprehension of what they mean?
J (2946f2) — 8/26/2011 @ 6:34 amAnother Chris – Is the above what you are talking about, the budget Republicans overwhelmingly rejected and Obama voted in favor of, the one he is trying to blame on Bush? Seriously?
But it’s not really fair to say the FY 2009 budget is Bush’s doing. It’s Obama’s doing. He is responsible for it.
This is just more unwarranted white-knighting.
Keep in mind, folks, that when Bush originally submitted this budget, it was already assumed that it would result in a deficit of $400 billion. Are all of you really trying to bolster Bush’s fiscally conservative credentials by trying to hang all of the $3.1 trillion THAT HIS ADMINSTRATION CALCULATED on the fact that Pelosi and Reid passed, and Obama voted for, what he submitted (not counting the extra $410 billion that Obama signed off on in March 2009)?
I fully expect Democrats to pass budgets that aren’t in line with tax revenues; that doesn’t mean I need to ignore the fact that the Dems passed a budget that Bush himself created. Whether or not the rest of his party voted for it is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Again, stop white-knighting for the guy. If I wanted partisan apologetics for a worthless President, irrespective of the math or facts, I’ve got a university campus right down the road from work that I can visit.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/26/2011 @ 7:03 amAre all of you really trying to bolster Bush’s fiscally conservative credentials
No, most people don’t consider fiscal policy a strong point of Bush’s presidency.
We just don’t want to pretend that Bush and a Repub Congress was the same as Bush and a Dem Congress is the same as Obama and a Dem Congress.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/26/2011 @ 7:09 amI always wonder why this sort of post gets so much play, including significant space at Instapundit. It’s simply a slightly amusing way to say what everybody knows. There are no new insights here.
Maybe, it’s because mocking your enemy is an effective political weapon. If so, keep up the good work.
DADvocate (5f3e1f) — 8/26/2011 @ 7:10 amI am pleased to see that “frak” is spelled correctly, and used in the proper context.
Obviously, Obama HAS to be a skin-job.
Estoniakat (848550) — 8/26/2011 @ 7:11 amI still haven’t seen where Pelosi and Reid passed Bush’s proposed budget, nor where he signed it. I understand I am not likely to see that, because it did not happen. It is not white-knighting someone to point out where someone else is wrong wrong wrong.
JD (0d2ffc) — 8/26/2011 @ 7:16 amIf Republicans think that the American electorate votes rationally, they are sadly (and typically) mistaken.
PacRim Jim (66ecaa) — 8/26/2011 @ 11:45 amA practiced smile and the promise of a shiny coin are all it takes to extract the vote of the typical hypo-educated American voter.
Sorry, Founding Fathers, but it has come to this.
What part of “Bush is not off the hook” don’t you understand?
Yes, he proposed a bloated budget. Several. Average $150 billion deficit per year, which is unsustainable.
And Obama and Democrats generally took that mess and made it a lot worse.
In no way does this exonerate Bush. This is about the fact that the FY2009 deficit is simply not Bush’s doing. It just isn’t.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/26/2011 @ 11:54 amDADvocate:
Am I correct to read your comment to say that you’re sure Obama is a lying politician, as opposed to an ideologue willing to harm the country in order to move America toward the European socialist model? If so, what makes you so sure it’s the former instead of the latter?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/26/2011 @ 12:08 pmI think other than getting Spock to do a Vulcan mind meld, or hearing directly from God, I’m not sure there is a way to definitively answer that question, DRJ, unless the answer is “Yes” or “Both”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/26/2011 @ 12:27 pmDAD,
Perhaps I’m over-analyzing your point, and you’re simply agreeing with the post that liberals should understand why conservatives are confused about Obama’s motives. Is that what you’re saying?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/26/2011 @ 12:31 pmHello, MD! I agree we can’t know what Obama’s motives are, which is one reason I was curious about DADvocate’s point. I’ve previously seen his comments at Dr. Helen’s website and I’m curious why he thinks this post is so pedestrian.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/26/2011 @ 12:33 pmIt is not white-knighting someone to point out where someone else is wrong wrong wrong.
Comment by JD — 8/26/2011 @ 7:16 am
Probably because it’s impossible in your mind to reconcile how fiscal years and calendar years could be two different things.
If you’re really too stupid to understand how a $3.1 trillion budget > $2.1 trillion in tax receipts, no one can possibly help you.
Another Chris (c983db) — 8/26/2011 @ 8:58 pmWe just don’t want to pretend that Bush and a Repub Congress was the same as Bush and a Dem Congress is the same as Obama and a Dem Congress.
The national debt keeps going up regardless of who’s in charge, so really the differences are a matter of degree.
Another Chris (c983db) — 8/26/2011 @ 9:00 pmYou really are aggressively douchey on this. You have yet to show where Pelosi and Reid passed Bush’s budget. You have yet to show that Bush signed the budget you are blaming him for. Bush was craptacular on spending, but an absolute piker compared to Pelosi, Reid, and now Obama. If it makes you feel better, keep spouting off. But I will call yo out when you are wrong wrong wrong, which you have consistently been in this thread. It is odd behavior from you.
JD (318f81) — 8/26/2011 @ 9:03 pmOnly morons report the fiscal performance of the Federal Govt in Calendar Years, since it neither matches the Fiscal Year, or the span of the Presidential Term.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (985f21) — 8/26/2011 @ 9:07 pmUnless your blaming him for 9-11 your letting him off the hook in Another Pelosi sack lickers eyes.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/26/2011 @ 9:16 pmComment by Another Chris
Do you really want to do this?
We recently purchased a car with a $300/mo payment. We theoretically could have purchased a car with a $1,500/mo payment. Either way we have a loan and a monthly payment, so the difference is a matter of degree.
Currently we are meeting our obligation without worry. Had we purchased something with a $1,500 payment, it would soon be repossessed.
Yes, we know it is a matter of degree. Under Bush we could meet the obligation, under Obama, not so much so.
Please, pick a better argument.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/26/2011 @ 10:02 pmIf your too stupid.
Irony alert.
DohBiden (d54602) — 8/26/2011 @ 10:17 pmYou really are aggressively douchey on this.
Probably because attributing a budget that Bush submitted–one that was already estimated to be $400 billion in the hole when it was created–as entirely on Obama instead is disingenuous bullshit.
I have no problem holding Obama accountable for the spending he authorized during his time as President–that’s why I threw in the $410 billion from the omnibus bill on his ledger; that was spending Bush didn’t want to sign off on. The other $3.1 trillion in spending was all the crafting of the Bush team, and it didn’t even include the Iraq and Afghanistan appropriations, to boot. That Congress passed the budget BUSH HIMSELF SUBMITTED means that the spending is on Bush, not Obama.
Yes, we know it is a matter of degree. Under Bush we could meet the obligation, under Obama, not so much so.
We recently purchased a car with a $300/mo payment. We theoretically could have purchased a car with a $1,500/mo payment. Either way we have a loan and a monthly payment, so the difference is a matter of degree.
The problem is that this isn’t the same situation as buying a car, unless you’re paying more than you’re taking in to have the car.
If you’re paying down your balance, then your analogy doesn’t work. The government hasn’t paid down one penny of its national debt since 1957.
Unless your blaming him for 9-11 your letting him off the hook in Another Pelosi sack lickers eyes.
Did someone steal your My Little Pony collection, DohBiden? Or are you just upset that Obama didn’t actually submit the FY 2009 budget (you know, the one that Bush’s team initially estimated was going to be $400 billion over receipts)?
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 9:46 amYou realize you just contradicted yourself, right?
Obama authorized the FY 2009 budget. Bush did not.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 10:08 amAnd how many people have acknowledged that Bush isn’t off the hook anyway?
How many times does that need to be said? Yes, Bush was poor on spending. That’s a fact. the FY 2009 deficit was a democrat failing, not a Republican one, even though the GOP was simply less bad.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 10:09 amI have yet to see where the budget Busg submitted was passed.
JD (318f81) — 8/29/2011 @ 10:27 amYou realize you just contradicted yourself, right?
Obama authorized the FY 2009 budget. Bush did not.
Bush didn’t create a budget totaling $3.1 trillion?
I have yet to see where the budget Busg submitted was passed.
So that $3.1 trillion was spent based on nothing that Bush had created?
Did Obama come up with that $3.1 trillion budget, or did Bush? Are you guys seriously not holding Bush accountable for what he created?
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 10:58 amAs I’ve repeatedly noted, the actual budget, the democrat and Obama signed budget, is worse than the Bush one. The democrats deserve full credit for the full deficit while Bush deserves blame for his less-bad yet still bad alternative that did not really happen.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:00 amAnd how many people have acknowledged that Bush isn’t off the hook anyway?
Since everyone else on this thread seems to think that Obama is responsible for all of FY 2009’s spending (even that which took place before he ever became President), and Bush is responsible for none of it, it appears that they’ve been arguing that exact thing.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:00 amAnd just to be clear, the GOP has a record on the actual budget for FY 2009. They solidly rejected it. It’s unfair to blame them for something they rejected.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:01 amHe’s 100% responsible for anything he signed his name to.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:01 amPelosi and Reid crafted the budget, unless you contend that they followed Bush’s wishes. In addition, it was not submitted to Bush for his signature, under threat of veto, and held until after the election, where they larded up the budget with Dem pet projects, prior to the “stimulus”.
JD (318f81) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:02 amFurthermore, blame is not a zero sum game, Chris.
And Obama is yet up for reelection.
Criticizing Bush’s spending is fine to large extent, though it’s got very little to do with choosing the next president or discussing current events.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:03 amThe democrats deserve full credit for the full deficit while Bush deserves blame for his less-bad yet still bad alternative that did not really happen.
The Dems still passed every single penny of the $3.1 trillion that Bush submitted. Even if they had left out the $410 billion from the omnibus bill plus all the GWOT appropriations, Bush’s budget still would have resulted in a $1 trillion deficit by the end of FY 2009.
The main issue I’m having here is that everyone in this thread has been arguing that the FY 2009 deficit is all on Obama. Considering he didn’t even take over as President until three months into the fiscal year, it’s a disingenuous argument to make.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:07 amWhat is your point?
How in the world do you get from there to saying Obama cannot be blamed 100% for signing a bill that Bush said he would not sign? How do you get to blame Bush for a bill he said he would veto?
I don’t understand.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:12 amAnd just to be clear, the GOP has a record on the actual budget for FY 2009. They solidly rejected it. It’s unfair to blame them for something they rejected.
Whether the GOP rejected Bush’s budget plans is entirely beside the point–he still came up with the budget.
He’s 100% responsible for anything he signed his name to.
And Bush isn’t?
Pelosi and Reid crafted the budget, unless you contend that they followed Bush’s wishes. In addition, it was not submitted to Bush for his signature, under threat of veto, and held until after the election, where they larded up the budget with Dem pet projects, prior to the “stimulus”.
Did they or did they not pass every single penny of spending that Bush proposed?
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:12 amIt is all on him. Every penny of it is on him. Every cent.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:13 amObama should have vetoed the bill if he didn’t want the spending you are blaming Bush for. But Obama DID want ALL of that spending.
Just because Bush also wanted a fraction of it doesn’t help him at all.
There are a lot of ways to see this. One is how terrible the deficit has been in 2010 and 2011.
I cannot understand what argument you’re trying to make. Obama is absolutely the worst with regard to spending. There is no one else who is similar. Bush was quite bad, but he was not in the same league. His refusal to sign the FY 2009 budget is a great proof I am correct.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:15 amHow in the world do you get from there to saying Obama cannot be blamed 100% for signing a bill that Bush said he would not sign? How do you get to blame Bush for a bill he said he would veto?
I don’t understand.
Jesus–did or did not Bush submit a $3.1 trillion budget that was initially assumed to be $400 billion over receipts and ended up being $1 trillion over receipts?
That the Dems wanted to add on another $410 billion to the spending that Obama eventually signed off on is beside the point–if just the spending Bush submitted had passed, there still would have been a deficit of $1 trillion. The Omnibus Bill and supplemental GWOT appropriations on top of the Bush budget resulted in a deficit over $1.8 trillion.
Where is this notion coming from that Bush gets off the hook for the opposing party approving all of the spending that he himself proposed? Just because they went well beyond what he wanted to spend doesn’t mean he gets excused for it. It’s like someone taking all the credit for a speech that another person provided the bulk of the narrative for.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:20 am“The main issue I’m having here is that everyone in this thread has been arguing that the FY 2009 deficit is all on Obama. Considering he didn’t even take over as President until three months into the fiscal year, it’s a disingenuous argument to make.”
Another Chris – The main issue I have is that it is typical Obama spin, buck passing and responsibility avoidance for him to claim he started out $1 trillion in the hole when he walked into the Oval Office due to Bush when he personally vetted and voted for budget which resulted in that deficit. It is a typical cowardly Obama dodge.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:26 amYeah, it just seems like buck passing to me. Obama signed the damn thing. The democrats voted for it. Ever since then it’s been a finger pointing game, and especially at the people who didn’t vote for it and didn’t sign it.
I realize Chris isn’t trying to protect Obama here… though I don’t get his argument. Is it not perfectly obvious that Obama is in favor of massive budgets and a huge government? Sure, Bush is in favor of big budgets and big government, but notably not as bad as his successor.
Obama gets 100% blame for his choices.
Dustin (b2fb78) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:28 amIt is all on him. Every penny of it is on him. Every cent.
That’s absurd unless you want to argue that Reagan is responsible for the entire FY 1981 deficit, and Bush I for FY 1989, and Clinton for FY 1993, and Bush II for FY 2001.
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:28 amThe main issue I have is that it is typical Obama spin, buck passing and responsibility avoidance for him to claim he started out $1 trillion in the hole when he walked into the Oval Office due to Bush when he personally vetted and voted for budget which resulted in that deficit.
And that’s fine–I just don’t see where Bush gets off on this at all; that’s my main issue.
For god’s sake, we EXPECT Dems to spend no matter what the fiscal situation is. So Obama spending the $3.1 trillion that Bush proposed and then some isn’t a surprise. But it’s not like Bush had to provide him with the majority of the framework to do so. Hell, it might have even been advantageous; what were they going to do if he proposed an acutal balanced budget, kick him out of office?
Another Chris (c04459) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:32 amThat’s absurd unless you want to argue that Reagan is responsible for the entire FY 1981 deficit, and Bush I for FY 1989, and Clinton for FY 1993, and Bush II for FY 2001.
How many of those people not only voted for, but then signed into law, the budgets you are asking about?
JD (318f81) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:56 amWhere did this idea that Bush’s budget got passed by Pelosi and Reid come from?
JD (318f81) — 8/29/2011 @ 11:57 amThe point is AC, that six previous years of “compassionate conservatism” demonstrated that GWB was not adverse to spending large sums of money on domestic programs if that is what it took to get the Congress to support the GWOT.
Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (69a267) — 8/29/2011 @ 12:00 pmAnd, that leads to the fact that the 110th Congress was prepared to take that to a new level, a level even beyond where GWB was willing to go; thus, the threat to Veto the Budget that Pelosi/Reid were preparing, and the subsequent CR’s to tide the govt over from 1Oct08 to the change of watch on 20Jan09.
Once that Veto was no longer a possibility, Princess Nan and Dim-bulb Harry slapped a lard-laden Budget on Teh Won’s desk, and he enthusiastically signed it, and wanted more.
Bush was too dumb to pass a budget but he was so evil geniusey he committed 9/11.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/6/2011 @ 4:05 pmFY2009 budget was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Obama. This is different than normal because normally the FY2009 budget would have been passed and signed prior to the Nov2008 elections. But since Bush stated very clearly he would veto the Democrat budget, the Democrats refused to pass it and hand it off to Bush. They waited for Obama to become President.
The FY2009 budget was decidedly not the Bush budget but a larded-up Democrat budget, plain and simple. Since then, the Democrats have steadfastly refused to even attempt to pass a budget. It has been over 855 days since the Harry Reid-controlled Senate has even made any attempt whatsoever, despite Federal Law.
The FY2009 budget is wholly on the heads of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats who voted for it. The Republicans’ hands are clean regarding FY2009 and since.
To try to tie FY2009 to George W Bush is to either be a completely ignorant fool or an outright liar. There is no other option.
John Hitchcock (7af282) — 9/6/2011 @ 4:42 pmDo you think unions care about you the common folk?
Yes? Think again.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/16/2011 @ 7:28 amIsrael attacks Gaza Strip resulting in casualties-Bad
Muslims kill other muslims opposing them-Silence.
Thanks for exposing your hypocrisy leftytards.
DohBiden (d54602) — 9/18/2011 @ 9:17 am