Obama did what? Well BUSH BLARG BLARG

[Boozy]

And he blamed the King of England!

[Fashion Lad!]

I'd watch the phrasing there, sir.

Yes, ma'am.

Really, I just hate absolutes.

[ben_who]

The old "But Clinton!" defense never really went away; Clinton was not only blamed for the economic downturn of 2001, but the World Trade Center collapse, the crash of the Space Shuttle Columbia, and the difficulties we had with securing Iraq. He was also blamed for the current recession, since the policies that led to it were enacted during his watch. In fact, during the Bush years, the "But Carter!" meme was starting to show up.

The weird thing about this defense seems to be that it implies that President Bush was TOTALLY HELPLESS during his entire eight years in office; that a President who wielded more power than anyone since World War II could only stand idly by as the trains his predecessors set in motion all crashed one by one.

And I was conscious of all this when the tide turned in 2008 and Obama became President, that I would be vulnerable to the same criticisms. How long would I be blaming Bush for the problems in government and policy? How long was fair, really?

At what point in a crisis do you stop blaming the administration that started it and start blaming the administration perpetuating it? When does the Iraq War, the recession, the four-digit DJIA, the worst unemployment in 26 years, and the complete lack of civility in public discourse become the fault of the current guy?

I suppose it's situational; the Ship of State is huge and does NOT turn on a dime, ditto the economy. I still consider the Iraq War President Bush's little baby disaster, and probably always will, but eventually the economy is going to stop being the problem of the guy that happened to be in the big chair when it ground to a halt and start being the problem of the guy who couldn't get it started again. (And I know there seems to be a light at the end of that particular tunnel; suffice it to say that this Obama guy and I would be having a much greater problem right now if there weren't.)

I'm saying that the "But the last guy was worse!" defense isn't ALWAYS out of line, but it MUST be used rarely, if at all, and NEVER apples to oranges. Liberals had to listen to the "But Clinton!!" defense for eight years as the Republic trembled; the "But Bush!!" defense isn't going to go away in only six months.

[Fashion Lad!]

My major problem with the "But Bush" or even "But Clinton" arguments is when someone will take something like obscene amounts of spending (Bush) and be mad about it. But when their guy is doing the same thing it's, "but Bush did it too."

That argument has never flown well with me and probably never have. Two wrongs don't make a right. And 1 wrong Bush's 3 trillion dollar deficit over 8 years does not justify Obama's projected deficit of nearly10 trillion dollars of the next 8 years.

It was wrong when Bush did it and it's wrong when Obama does it. That's what I want people to get through their heads.

At this point though, things like spending and economic matters seemingly have less to do with the actual problem but more with who's doing the spending.

And I know there are times when you have to force money into the economy to get it going. But, when is it too much?

$3 trillion = too fucking much
$10 trillion = eh, a little high, but isn't he an eloquent speaker?

Regan spent too much, Bush Sr. spent too much. Clinton spent a fair amount too (but did considerably better than the rest).

It's Obama's job now to fix whatever the previous administration did. If he does what the administration before him did, why is what he is doing correct and what the other guy did wrong?

[Hyena Dandy]

Honestly, my response is that yeah, you're right. Bush DID do it. And I hated it when HE did it too.