Are Republican attacks against Obama just pent up aggression that they couldn't admit about Bush's failures?

Obama's running a record budget deficit!

(Bush did this every year he was in office, even during GOOD economic times and he inherited a budget surplus.)

Obama's spending too much!

(Did you hear Republicans complain about record spending increases & record budget deficits under Bush? Did they complain when Bush spent 750 BILLION to bailout banks a few months back?)

Obama's Socialist!

(AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, numerous banks, etc...all nationalized under Bush)

Mind you....Obama has been in office a week.

Is all this anger just coming out because Republicans could NEVER complain about the ample failures of Bush?

Update:

Bush inherited a 300 BILLION dollar budget surplus and a cyclical downturn.

To compare the dotCom bust with what we are seeing now in the banking system, is a joke. The current downturn is timed to the cyclical, but fundamental issues (like a housing bubble that Bush ignored) have created significant cracks in the infrastructure of the finance world.

Note also that Bush had economic stimulus packages in 2001 and 2002 totaling about 300 BILLION, along with last years package for a 325 BILLION. (no complaint there either)

Update 2:

Someone claims Clinton had a 'projected budget surplus'. Not true.

Clinton had surpluses the last 3 years in office. The last year in office, Clinton had a VERY REAL RECORD BUDGET SURPLUSE of 230 BILLION (so I was wrong when I said 300, fwiw):

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0...

Those are the facts.

Update 3:

Oh, and Fannie/Freddie were GSE's....founded by the government under FDR....BUT 100% STOCK HOLDER OWNED SINCE THE 1960's. It was placed in conservatorship by the FHA last year.....NATIONALIZED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

I have no problem correcting people, but it is a bit ironic when I'm correcting someone, with facts, that started their post calling me ignorant.

25 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Very well thought out.

    Kudos to you my friend.

    God Bless our President Obama

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It comes from intelligence and some understanding of economics.

    Bush did not inherit a budget surplus. That's a lie, Clinton ran a budget deficit every single year he was in office. This whole "budget surplus" bit comes from a PROJECTED surplus sometime in the future.

    Yes, Republicans complained about the bank bailout out.

    And FYI Fannie Mae was "nationalized" in 1938 and Freddie Mac was "nationalized" in 1970. You might want to go check what years Bush was in office...

    Now, let's remember that Obama has been in Washington for several years. During that time he lead the defense of Freddie and Fannies lending policies, policies which lead the collapse of the housing market. Combine this with his anti-business, anti-profit, anti-growth platform he ran on during the election campaign and you have the man most responsible for our current economic troubles.. And then he tosses in a massive bailout plan that's so idiotic a first grader should be able to see the flaws in it...

    • Login to reply the answers
  • lrd00a
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    You're one to talk about spending too much. Dems complained about Bush spending 40 mil on his inauguration, then Obama spent in excess of $150 mil.

    Bush's deficit was set in concrete by none other than Clinton by the 1995 Housing Act, so thank him. Oh and thank that MoFo Clinton for fudging the numbers in a fake report that showed that if the economy continued to increase, their would be a surplus, but that surplus was fabricated.

    Obama voted against the regulation of Freddie/Fannie back when Bush and McCain were trying to regulate it, long before it crashed, so Obama is a Socialist in that respect. Thank him for ensuring our failure.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    While the numbers may say otherwise, Bush never had a budget surplus. The "surplus" that Clinton supposedly had was do to the fact the the Social Security trust fund had a record amount in inflows at the time. This money was ear-marked for people's retirement, yet Clinton brought it onto the gov't balance sheet as a surplus and yes....spent a large portion of it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Most of the people here are so ignorant.

    Democrat controlled Congress? A majority of one does not get a bill passed. It takes 60 votes to pass a bill. Not 51. So anything that passed got Republican support.

    Every President has an economic downturn and an economic boom. Some are greater than others. Economics are cyclical in nature and cannot be attributed to one man. Clinton didn't cause the dot.com meltdown and Bush did not cause the Housing bubble to burst.

    What caused the dot.com bubble to burst was a flooding of the market. What caused the Housing bubble to burst was pure greed. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by greed. Madoff and Enron, greed.

    It's so amazing that people listen to pundits and get a twisted version of half the story. That's what is also dividing this Country. Pure laziness.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Congress passes bills that = spending, the president can suggest what he wants but he has no right or legal way to make the money available..read ur constitution....... Republicans know that the Obama plan (900 billion as of today) is a booooooooooon doggle .... what should be done is have a tax holiday, do not collect fed, fica, social security tax for at least two months -- let the taxpayer have his money and then watch the economy JUMP start.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You need to research a bit more than just the quotes by "moveon" and the likes. Just a quick enlightment for you: Fannie Mae, etc. were under President Bush but most importantly under the democrat house!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No, but according to you and other Democrats it's okay that you guys complained the whole time Bush was President even though he really did do a good job keeping our nation safe.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Nah, it just payback for all the bush bashing the dems did!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    i stopped reading after your first inaccurate statement. did you forget that CLINTON took our social security and paid off the debt???? do you even realize that you nor i will EVER see any of that money because a DEMOCRAT stole it from you without your permission. do you even care that you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about? yeah didnt think so.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    You are leaving out what happened under a Democratic Congress and the fact that we still have one.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.