Originally Posted by WhiteChocolateJr
Wingnuts, help me out here:
When Reagan faced a depressed economy during the first years of his term, it was Jimmy Carter's fault for setting the stage for the collapse.
When Bush dropped the ball on 9/11 in his first year of his term, it was Clinton's fault for setting the stage for the failures.
...how, then, is it President Obama's "fault" that we aren't all happily sipping chardonnay in our hovercrafts a few months removed from a global financial meltdown? Shouldn't we be at least be consistent, and blame the guy before him?
But just because the majority of our economic problems were not caused by Obama, doesn't mean that his actions or solution are immune from critique.
Many of our economic problems can be traced far back to the Regan era. Every congress and president since then shares blame. But Obama's answers to the problems don't look like they will solve anything.
There is no hypocrisy here. The terror attacks on 9/11 may have been partially enabled by the inaction of the Clinton administration, but no one in their right minds can blame Clinton for Bush's botching of the Iraq threat, the ridiculous Patriot Act (which by the way had a majority of Democratic support as well), overspending on war efforts, or his administration's own failure to apprehend Bin Laden.
In the same way, how can anyone blame Bush for Obama's apparent plan to continue increasing our national debt and centralize control of more and more social services into the federal government, with no clear evidence that anything will actually work better?
As a matter of fact, I'd like to know of ONE piece of federal legislation in the last 30 years that can be shown to have been deficit neutral or better. I can't think of a single one. Yet we're supposed to buy into Obama's horsecrap? I think not. I wouldn't believe it from Bush, and I won't believe it from Barak.