How come every obstacle Obama faces is Bush's Fault yet?
I have yet to hear one person ever credit the great years under Clinton to Bush Sr...
It just seems that when a Democrat is in office, everything good is their doing, but everything bad is a Republican's fault.
thoughts?
2009-05-18T18:04:40Z
I am impressed, there are actually a few good answers in there. Good answers Massive Man and Neocon :)
2009-05-18T18:09:23Z
Thumbs up to you too El Tecolote!!
2009-05-18T18:18:11Z
Wow, lots of great answers from both sides of the issue.
Great reading so far everyone!
For the record, I think if Bush Jr. was replaced with the janitor, the country might have been in better shape. On the flip side, I am no fan of Obama either (despite living in Illinois). Illinois is in shambles and he was part of it, while I think he has tremendous potential, I don't think he was ready to run 50 states when the 1 he helped run wasn't doing that well
Anonymous2009-05-18T18:10:53Z
Favorite Answer
Well, in fairness, nearly every problem currently present was present while Bush was President and Obama inherited it.
On the other hand, nearly every good thing that occurred while Clinton was President was not present when Bush Sr. was President. Clinton inherited a recession, so did Obama. Neither Bush inherited one.
However, I do believe you are at least partially right about Bush Sr. I actually believe that he did a major action that helped Clinton greatly in re-establishing the economy. I believe that if Bush Sr. had not done this action, we would have had a recession similar to the one we have now, instead of the relatively light one we had at the end of his term.
However, most Republicans don't agree with me when I point out what I think that action is. I think the action that Bush Sr. did that helped so much was to raise taxes. It cost him his second term, since he could not get enough Republicans to back him for doing that; but it was a central part of the recovery.
The problem that Bush Sr. had is the same one that Bush Jr. had. They spent too much fighting in Iraq. They didn't have taxes high enough to pay for their respective wars, and that forced them to have to borrow money from other countries, at very high and exponentially growing interest rates. That massacred the National Debt.
The difference is that Bush Sr. realized it, and raised taxes to pay for his war after the fact. His war was also quite a bit shorter, so he didn't have to pay back as much. His war was also significantly less destructive, so we didn't have to pay for reconstruction.
By raising taxes, Bush Sr. was able to begin paying back what he borrowed, and Clinton finished paying it back during his term. That kept the value of the dollar way up, and so the economy recovered and went on to pretty awesome growth.
Bush Jr. did not raise taxes, so he could not pay his costs back. That sent the National Debt through the roof. When Bush Jr. got to office, he inherited a National Debt of $4 trillion. When he left office, he left us with a nearly $11 trillion National Debt. That means that Bush managed to spend nearly $3 trillion MORE THAN DOUBLE what ALL 42 of his predecessors needed 224 years to amass. Such a huge rise in the National Debt destroyed the value of the dollar, which dropped to its 16 year low.
Bush Sr. does deserve some of the credit for the good of the Clinton years; just not for the reason Republicans like to admit to. Bush Jr. deserves all of the "credit" for our current situation.
Obama supporters will only offer him credit when/if things are going well. Otherwise, everything will be because it was an inherited mess. It's funny to me that so many posted here that there hasn't been enough time when the stock market was still plummeting, but that Obama is responsible for its recent gains. Those people have no idea how Wall Street, or the economy for that matter, operate and are pretty much speaking out of ignorance. I think a few are beginning to wake up, but it's still early in his administration yet. If the economy still sucks and there isn't universal health care or more social programs within a year or two I believe the tides will begin to turn.
Hmm.....well, the simple truth is this: When Clinton took office, it was from Bush Sr, who's administration was still suffering from the trauma of trickle down economics that were popular during Reagan's Administration. Bush Sr, was clearly and surely a great President who simply didn't have the time to recover from some of Reagan's policies (not all were bad.)
Clinton and his republican congress really had to start at the bottom and they had the benefit of the .com explosion which the previous administration didn't enjoy, nor did the one that followed Clinton.
For his part, Bush's Presidency would have probably been quite uneventful but for 9/11 and the chain of events that followed. Surely, you must understand that the previous 8 years were wrought with problems that are still lasting and still must be dealt with. Unfortunately, the previous president did not have the time to wrap up his own problems, i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, N. Korea, Iran, economic troubles, etc. These problems, some of which only popped up in the last days of the Bush Administration are the property of the Bush Administration and must be solved by the current administration.
Obama has only been in office for 5 months yet I read here on Y/A Republicans accusing Obama of the economic situation that he only had one vote on as a senator . If not Bush then who ? It was certainly under The watch of the Bush administration that the economic situation started to decline .
Bush was in his ninth month of his Presidency, yet Republicans blame Clinton for 911. The economy was inherited by Obama. The pirate crises and the swine flu were handled very well by a proactive President. 911, Katrina, and the resession were major crises because of a reactive President.