>> The 2009 budget was passed under Bush.
Right. With an estimated deficit of $407 Billion.
Add in TARP (which, as previously mentioned, shouldn't have been there since the money was not spent, it was invested, and subsequently recovered) and the decline in revenue (which occurred predominantly after Bush left office) and there's your huge Obama deficit.
In the end, it comes down to who you want to blame. You want to blame Bush because you're a yellow dog democrat. I want to assign the blame to the person most responsible, which was Obama.
Now, assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm wrong.
What about the subsequent years? I suppose you're blaming Bush for those, too? Even though Obama had control of Congress and could have EASILY chosen to make spending cuts to bring the budget in line with revenues -- the action that SHOULD have been taken.
If you want to blame Bush for the last year (where he actually served only 3 months, most of the spending occurred in the nine months after he left office, and his estimate only months earlier had estimated the deficit at only $400B vs. the trillion plus it ended up being), fine. But you cannot so easily explain away the string of trillion dollar plus deficits that have resulted from Obama policy in the subsequent years. He could have made different choices and he didn't.
I'm not sure how long you think you're going to get away with it. In the end, Obama is going to have to accept responsibility for his own spending. And as of now, he can't blame the Bush tax cuts for it, as they're now the "Obama tax cuts" (and arguably, have been for two years).
You are vastly more intelligent than teddy; but when you go down the partisan path, you end up looking just as stupid. Stop doing it; develop some independence from the democrats. It is irrational to continue supporting them when you have to totally contort the facts to do so. |
