Conservative Viewpoints

"Government is not the solution…it is the problem" -Ronald Reagan



  • ReoAd

    mainstreet_ad_pdf.jpg

    C&LPhoto

The “Blame Bush” game needs to stop

Posted by Stephen on July 6, 2010

There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to be frustrated with former President George W. Bush. He spent to much money and increased the scope and powers of the Federal Government to an intrusive level unseen in decades to name two. However, the Obama administration decided that, in light of their inability to lead, they would use the Bush name to deflect their shortcomings.

Nothing about that decision is unique. The fact is the people can rest assured that any time one party takes over for another in the White House there is going to be a certain level of blame placed on the former until the new can begin asserting themselves in Congress.
The Obama administration has taken the blame-game to a new low. If there is a cloud in the sky on a clear day, according to the White House, it’s Bush’s fault. Unfortunately for them, this strategy is, and will continue, to backfire.

For example, the Obama administration took over an estimated 8 trillion dollars of debt and promptly turned it into 14 trillion and counting. Obama accused President Bush of leading an illegal war while turning the Muslim world against us; suggesting they weren’t against us on September 11, 2001. Yet, Barack Obama has followed, to the letter, the Bush war policy including increasing troops to Afghanistan. He raises taxes and blames Bush. He signs the Patriot Act and blames Bush if you don’t like it. He forces an unwanted health care bill down the people’s throat and blames Bush for anything you don’t like.
Now, according to records in a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., the Obama administration received a forceful warning about the dangers of offshore oil drilling.

According to a report by Fox News, the appeals court ruled that the government was unprepared for a major spill at sea, relying on an “irrational” environmental analysis of the risks of offshore drilling. The April 2009 ruling stunned both the administration and the oil industry, and threatened to delay or cancel dozens of offshore projects in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

In what amounts to a serious contradiction to its election rhetoric, the Obama administration urged the court to revisit the decision. In its arguments to the court, the government said that the loss of royalties on the oil, estimated at almost $10 billion, “may have significant financial consequences for the federal government.”

In his presidential campaign, President Obama criticized the Bush administration for being too soft on the oil industry and vowed to support greener energy forms.

But, once in office, President Obama ended up backing offshore drilling, bowing to political and fiscal realties, even as his administration’s own scientists and Democratic lawmakers warned about its risks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed its decision and allowed drilling in the Gulf to proceed; including on BP PLC’s now-infamous Macondo well, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast.

According to the Fox News report, the Obama administration’s actions in the court case exemplify the dilemma the White House faced in developing its energy policy. Again, establishing policies are challenging; blaming others for their failure to do so shows a lack of leadership that has become the calling card of the Obama administration.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “The “Blame Bush” game needs to stop”

  1. robert said

    Hmmm, I think it says something when you have to reference fox news reports to back up your opinion.

    You’re numbers are very slanted. First of all at the end of 2010 the national dedt was nearly 10 trillion (not 8 trillion) and when Bush began being president it was about 5.5 trillion (nearly doubling the dedt). And You are also including the initial bailout passed by Bush as part of “Obama’s dedt”. And on top of all of that right now the dedt is 13 trillion not 14 trillion.

    The dedt put on in the last 10 years mainly comes from 3 different places. The Bush tax breaks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in the efforts to deal with the financial collapse of 2008. You have to wonder about the wisdom of giving tax breaks when going into war. It would be like FDR having asked people to please use more rubber and steel for yourself in 1942. One has to also wonder about the wisdom of having gone into iraq as it appears now that Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. The Bush administration knew he had nothing to do with Sept 11. And the Bush administration was willing to ruin the careers of anyone that was willing to state this obvious fact.

    I am confused on how exactly a democratically elected congress passing legislation to expand the number of people that have health insurance is socialism. Although I am sure that there are some Research 2000 polls that indicate that the American people do not want Heatlh Care Reform, these polls were taken only after so much misinformation was put out by the republicans about the Health Care reform being pushed. Misinformation like there being Death Panels, people not being able to keep their existing plans, and misinformation like the health care reform being a government take over of the insurance companies. In fact the Health Care Reform passed was in large part the same health care ideas pushed by Bob Dole and the Republican congress during the first debate about Health Insurance in 1993-94. The very moderate health care reform bill passed helps poor people gain health care insurance, prevents insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions, and encourages everyone to get heath care insurance so that the hospitals do not have to take on the cost of people that do not have insurance or a method of paying for the services they get. These measures I think are incomplete. It would be helpful if President Obama’s health care reform had attacked cost in a more direct manor. Allowing drugs from canada, legalizing marijuana, allowing insurance companies to operate across states, setting up a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance, and establishing a committee to oversee health care malpractice lawsuits all would have reduced the total cost of health care in this country. Sadly the republican congress gave to help in creating a better health care plan.

  2. Stephen said

    Let’s go step by step…I got the story from Fox so of course I quoted it. I realize that Fox is the devil for liberals but that’s because the fog liberals live in makes it very difficult to see the truth.

    I suppose to a liberal mind my numbers would be slanted. After all this is from a conservative viewpoint. Unfortunately, we could go back and forth about economic numbers all day long. That’s one of the reasons people have such a hard time deciding on who’s best to run the country. The confusion of who creates debts and who should shoulder the numbers makes one’s head spin. I remember when Bill Clinton was trying to take credit for a surplus during his Presidency even though experts from both sides of the isle were reminding people that his success was put in motion by George H. Bush. However, the fact of the matter remains that Obama has dramatically increased our debt while blaming Bush for anything and everything.

    Despite the liberal fog that exists, the debt, if you include the full effect of Obama’s bailout, is 14.3 Trillion dollars. Do you really thing he’s not going to spend the remaining bailout funds? Get real…of course he is, and that will put our debt at 14.3 Trillion dollars. The liberal Dems aren’t done yet either…they refuse to use unspent amounts of the bailout for unemployment extensions, opting to add another 33 billion to the deficit using the emotions of people’s economic struggles to justify more spending.

    Let me be clear; no fiscal conservative supported the ridiculous spending of the Bush administration. He spent too much money, period. That did not, under any circumstances, give Obama a right to announce an open season on spending and expanding the size of government in the name of reform and oversight. That is a ridiculous solution and highlights either Obama’s inexperience OR his deep appreciation of socialism.

    I am so sorry that you live in the liberal fog that creates such confusion for you. Obama is a socialist, as are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Their actions support that position. I don’t really know that any of them disagree, even publicly, with that statement.

    Dean Russell wrote that the same situation exists today that did in France in 1848. He wrote that the “same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were adopted in France are now sweeping America.”

    It doesn’t matter that liberals don’t appreciate the socialist title; I don’t blame them. The fact is Obama believes the state is here to dictate to the people and he is making it attractive to live and prosper at the expense of others; the rich OWE the poor. Obama said as much during a radio show in San Francisco during the final days of his campaign. Obama supports the origins of plunder; the idea that it is acceptable for a person to satisfy their wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others.

    Now, if you really believe that the idea that people didn’t want obamacare is based on polls from 2000 then you are sadly diluted and I can’t help you. Blue dog Dems prove my point that the unconstitutional idea of FORCED health care was not supported. People came out of the woodwork to fight this legislation but obama’s arrogance and deep socialist beliefs would not allow him to respond to the call of the people; it is a decision that thankfully will cost him a second term.

    As for some of your other comments; Canada has been quite outspoken about their disinterest in their product coming to America. They have made it clear that their system couldn’t keep up with the demand and they would take steps to protect themselves. I’m not sure what that means and to my knowledge the Canadian government has not elaborated. Legalizing marijuana is a joke. I can’t wait until California becomes the first state to take that step. Do you really think the drug lords in California or going to roll over, become law abiding citizens and sell their product on the open market? That is laughable, but the blood bath that may ensue will be tragic. I don’t buy the utopian idea that everyone stoned legally is the answer but it will create an even more apathetic state which is a liberal utopia.

    Frederic Bastiat wrote, “Immediately following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be answered: What is law? What is its scope; its limits? I do not hesitate to answer?” Bastiat continued, “Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice…it is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property…it is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our trade, our talents…the function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights…”

    If Obama had the audacity to believe in people, he might understand Frederic Bastiat…sadly, he’d rather live blind and deaf to the needs of liberty all in the name of embracing socialism…leaving him just plain dumb.

  3. Stephen said

    …by the way; in a poll released TODAY 49 percent strongly desire a repeal of the health care law while only 24 percent strongly desire no repeal.

  4. robert said

    Stephen, you really like straw men don’t you? It’s not that the numbers sound wrong, it is that they are wrong. You could have done a minimal amount of research and discovered this. But after your retort, I suspect it doesn’t matter to you whether or not you have the facts right or wrong.
    One thing that has drastically changed between 1848 and now is the definition of Socialism. In 1848, the french people had spent over a hundred years being ruled by empirical dictators that lead them into one unneeded war after another. Wars that ultimately bankrupted the country (the most common way that countries go bankrupt). After this, it is little wonder why communism would have seemed appealing to them. But back then communism really meant something. It meant a military coup of the ruling class, a take over of all free enterprise, and the distribution of all goods and services by the communist government. Now you are trying to define socialism-communism as a government led initiative to help the poorest among us afford private health insurance.
    I am not sure what Canada would do or if it would hurt their supply of medication, but I see no reason why in a free county you shouldn’t be able to choose where you get your medicine from.
    I don’t really know what you mean by ‘thinking the drug lords will just roll over’. If legalized, marijuana can be regulated and taxed. Helping some of the struggling tobacco companies and providing revenue to help reduce the deficit. It will also give many people a safer alternative to many of the far more expensive medications sold by the drug companies. Furthermore, it will reduce the amount of money going to these drug lords. Helping lower the amount of violence/traffic on the boarder. And probably most importantly it will reinforce America as being a free nation where people are allowed to do what they choose, unless there is a very good reason.

  5. Stephen said

    Robert, Robert, Robert…liberals never cease to amaze me. You sound just like the obama administration when you mention not caring if the numbers are right or wrong. For example, obama said he would not support obamacare if it added one cent to the deficit. Now it’s being reported that his unconstitutional forced health care program will add, when it’s all said and done, 250 Billion dollars to the deficit which will be at 14.3 Trillion dollars, whether you like to hear it or not, once his failed bailout has been fully implemented.

    You, like most liberals, seem to be a socialist in denial. I love the line suggesting the “definition of socialism” has changed. That is so funny…if you don’t like the definition, just change it, right? That’s great stuff…knowing the liberal agenda, I’m sure they’ll try and implement that into government books in high school.

    You mention a takeover of free enterprise as an ingredient of socialism; or at least it was in the olden days before liberals decided to change the definition. That said, I would label a takeover of partial ownership of GM as partial government takeover of a private sector company. How about the desire to take over banks? How about the desire to take over oil? How about the desire to dictate to companies to whom they give money and how they spend it and where they invest? I suppose you would deny these things exist, or that they were prudent in some way…but you, I’m sure, would never link them to the 21 century brand of socialism…since the definition has, of course, changed….as our current generation would say, “whatever…”

    In terms of legalization of marijuana…I disagree with the notion that taxing and regulation, liberal’s favorite key word for government expansion, will lower border violence. That is what I meant in my original response. In fact, I believe it will increase it. What do think the gangs that have taken over tax payer land in Arizona will do? Do you really think they will turn into entrepreneurs? I think the reaction will be a violent one.

    I believe the liberal democrat is desperate to redefine as many political definitions as they possibly can before November. They are going to lose in Missouri, Montana, and Nevada, and maybe even in the liberal empire that is California. That will follow up loses in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. They’re going to lose the House and, thankfully, the White House. It’s going to happen because liberals have no compass, because obama has failed as a leader, failed as an American and failed as President because he refuses, whether because of arrogance or ideology, to listen to the majority of the people of the United States. Of course, I realize that he’s trying to change who the majority is, but I think he’ll come up short before his next election….Thank God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: