PRESIDENT OBAMA: By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

 

Not exactly.

 

After all, 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."

 

When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.

 

This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with "Yeas" coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

 

How is this possibly something that happened before Obama "walked in the door" when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval -- save Bush's signature, of course -- and the highest members of the current Administration -- including the president himself!!! -- supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House?

 

Sadly, Obama-loving media care not to address this inconvenient truth.

 

But that's just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn't Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure?

 

And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn't Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden?

 

Of course, he didn't, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later.

 

Link

That does not change the facts of what was in place when he "walked through the door." So how do you put "not exactly" on the second box?

 

You also suggest that only TARP and the 2008 budget were the culprits and make no mention of the 2 wars and prescription drug benefit. How come?

That does not change the facts of what was in place when he "walked through the door." So how do you put "not exactly" on the second box?

 

You also suggest that only TARP and the 2008 budget were the culprits and make no mention of the 2 wars and prescription drug benefit. How come?

I put nothing in the second box, nor did I suggest anything about TARP. I merely posted part of the article. :lol:

 

Take it up with the author.

My apologies, I thought that since you posted it on a message board that you wanted a response, and that you agreed with the author. MY BAD. How silly of me.

My apologies, I thought that since you posted it on a message board that you wanted a response, and that you agreed with the author. MY BAD. How silly of me.

Did someone kick your dog or something or do you just need a hug?

That does not change the facts of what was in place when he "walked through the door." So how do you put "not exactly" on the second box?

 

You also suggest that only TARP and the 2008 budget were the culprits and make no mention of the 2 wars and prescription drug benefit. How come?

 

:isurrender:Let me amend this for discussion (besides knocking on each other) purpose:

 

That does not change the facts of what was in place when he "walked through the door." So how does the author validate putting "not exactly" on the second box?

 

The author also suggests that only TARP and the 2008 budget were the culprits and make no mention of the 2 wars and prescription drug benefit. How come?

 

Can we discuss this?

My apologies, I thought that since you posted it on a message board that you wanted a response, and that you agreed with the author. MY BAD. How silly of me.

I know, crazy of me to put something on a forum, of all places, for discussion. I'm cutting edge like that. :lol:

Did someone kick your dog ?

 

Every single day...............

I think it is funny that Obama places all of the blame for the debt on the Bush administration for the two wars, drug plan, etc, etc...

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as a United States Senator, didn't Obama vote to support the wars, drug plan, etc..?

 

I just don't think that all of the blame, or credit for that matter can be given to ANY US President when in fact, the US Congress Declares War and votes/decides how to spend the money?

I think it is funny that Obama places all of the blame for the debt on the Bush administration for the two wars, drug plan, etc, etc...

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as a United States Senator, didn't Obama vote to support the wars, drug plan, etc..?

 

I just don't think that all of the blame, or credit for that matter can be given to ANY US President when in fact, the US Congress Declares War and votes/decides how to spend the money?

 

The bolded hasn't happened since 1941.

That does not change the facts of what was in place when he "walked through the door." So how do you put "not exactly" on the second box?

 

You also suggest that only TARP and the 2008 budget were the culprits and make no mention of the 2 wars and prescription drug benefit. How come?

 

The point that he was trying to make was that Obama is attempting to lay the financial shambles of our country solely at the feet of George W. Bush. There's no question two wars & tax cuts hurt us financially. At the same time, massive bailouts & careless budgets played a large factor too.

 

So Barry O is right when he says he inherited a mess when he "walked through the door." But he had a major hand in it, along with the rest of the Democratic Congress, who supported the bailouts & the hair-brained budget. Together with GWB, they went on a spending spree for which we are now currently paying the price.

 

But when Obama travels the country or gets the opportunity to spout his nonsense on national television, he assumes the role of innocent bystander.

 

I personally believe Bush should carry the majority of the blame, because he was the President. But for Obama & the Dems to pretend they were helpless against Big Bad Bush is blatant hypocrisy, since he/they supported many of the initiatives themselves.

 

What really makes me laugh, though, is when Obama points to stock market gains as a sign that the economy is slowly getting better. But how many times on the campaign trail did we hear, "Under George W. Bush, the economy was good at times on Wall Street, but not on Main Street." But now, when market improvements can be to his benefit, he sings a different song.

 

The fact is that you skirted around this issue with semantics. Run To State simply highlighted the facts that Obama & the Dems supported many of Bush's idiotic financial decisions that led to the mess we're in now.

The point that he was trying to make was that Obama is attempting to lay the financial shambles of our country solely at the feet of George W. Bush. There's no question two wars & tax cuts hurt us financially. At the same time, massive bailouts & careless budgets played a large factor too.

Bottom line ... Obama inherited a mess. You can argue all day that he's making it worse, but there is no question he walked into a bad situation.

But he had a major hand in it, along with the rest of the Democratic Congress, who supported the bailouts & the hair-brained budget. Together with GWB, they went on a spending spree for which we are now currently paying the price.

A major hand? Obama was only a Senator for four of Bush's eight years, and Congress was under Republican control for six of the eight years.

The fact is that you skirted around this issue with semantics. Run To State simply highlighted the facts that Obama & the Dems supported many of Bush's idiotic financial decisions that led to the mess we're in now.

Are Obama and the Democrats blameless? Probably not, but let's not pretend that the Bush administration's policies didn't play a big role in this. The article he linked to seems to take that position.

Bottom line ... Obama inherited a mess. You can argue all day that he's making it worse, but there is no question he walked into a bad situation.

A major hand? Obama was only a Senator for four of Bush's eight years, and Congress was under Republican control for six of the eight years.

Are Obama and the Democrats blameless? Probably not, but let's not pretend that the Bush administration's policies didn't play a big role in this. The article he linked to seems to take that position.

 

Which is why I said "I believe Bush should carry the majority of the blame." Why didn't you highlight that part? I thought that, along with "hair-brained budget" and "Bush's idiotic financial decisions" would clearly communicate where I thought the majority of the blame should be placed. Guess not.

 

TARP & the 2009 budget (the two financial dealings mentioned in the article RTS referenced) were under Bush & a Democratic congress. Obama supported the budget, but also uses the deficit it produced to cry foul (as the article points out).

 

And we haven't even broached the subject of Fannie Mae & Freedie Mac...

 

Obama did inherit a mess--a mess he helped create. Bush played the biggest role, but he & the Democrats contributed to it big-time as well.

I think it is funny that Obama places all of the blame for the debt on the Bush administration for the two wars, drug plan, etc, etc...

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but as a United States Senator, didn't Obama vote to support the wars, drug plan, etc..?

 

I just don't think that all of the blame, or credit for that matter can be given to ANY US President when in fact, the US Congress Declares War and votes/decides how to spend the money?

 

Obama did not vote in favor of the wars.

Which is why I said "I believe Bush should carry the majority of the blame." Why didn't you highlight that part? I thought that, along with "hair-brained budget" and "Bush's idiotic financial decisions" would clearly communicate where I thought the majority of the blame should be placed. Guess not.

 

TARP & the 2009 budget (the two financial dealings mentioned in the article RTS referenced) were under Bush & a Democratic congress. Obama supported the budget, but also uses the deficit it produced to cry foul (as the article points out).

 

And we haven't even broached the subject of Fannie Mae & Freedie Mac...

 

Obama did inherit a mess--a mess he helped create. Bush played the biggest role, but he & the Democrats contributed to it big-time as well.

And that, my friend, is the bottom line. :thumb: