Obama Deficits Four Times Bush's
This article tells it. Oblahma isn't backing down. All that campaign rhetoric has gone by the wayside.
President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits
over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W.
Bush's presidency, congressional auditors said Friday
All this from the guy who blasted the previous administration (which by the way deserved most of it) for its deficits. Hope may be lost by the time this guy is finished with his change. He's just getting started and he's four times worse.
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 9:26 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
We can only hope that the spending will fund American projects on American soil so that the money will actually help put people to work and create a broader tax base, unlike Bush's policies which succeeded only in sending money to Iraq. We'll see. It's scary.
Mark
Bush sent too much to Iraq, but he also managed steady economic growth. He even sent people to the hill year after year to warn of the mortgage investment crisis looming. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were getting too much money from Fannie and blew off all the Bush administration efforts. To quote Barney, "Fannie and Freddie are not in trouble and if they were, the government wouldn't bail them out." Huh! Bush just spent way too much trying to appease the Democrats. We see how they try to appease the GOP.
Well, I find it very difficult to argue about things that I know little about! :) Primarily, I find it difficult to argue a point which depends greatly upon what news you've been reading, you know?
I have heard everyone on every side blaming and pointing fingers. It is difficult to really get at the truth of who did what, and what or who is ultimately responsible for this mess.
I would like to go out on a limb here and say that the whole debacle was far too big for either party to do anything about, at least by the time anyone really started paying attention to it. By that time, it was probably too late anyway. So, I am a little forgiving of Bush here, but only so far as I am too uninformed to really make these sorts of accusations. Basicallyh, I think Bush was handed a turd sandwich and he didn't know how to deal with it. I think the most you can blame him for here (though this is true in so many other cases too that it is frightening) is gross ineptitude.
Well, when Clinton signed the bill for credit default swaps to be traded, there was a lack of oversight included. Bush recognized it and warned and cautioned Frank and Dodd's committees regularly. I have a post with one "you tube" of a committee hearing where Frank takes offense and says the government wouldn't bail them out if there was any trouble. Bush had ample ineptitude, but not really in this arena. His biggest shortcoming was not carping loudly enough publicly.
I'll have to get back to you on this. I can't simply point the finger at Clinton for this. Something tells me there is far more at work here than one man failing to see a potential problem. I will read up on it! :)
I can't say Clinton was at fault. Just this year he said he thought it was a good decision. The Congressional boys missed it. At least that's how Clinton portrayed it in the interview I saw. I tend to agree with him.
I'll agree. I am sure blame is like warm butter... plenty to spread around!
Post a Comment
<< Home