Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco
You are correct.....too much credit and too much blame is given to the WH.
Of course that mantra only applies when the other party is leveling the criticism, right ? I recall Bush...oh heck..not recall...still responsible for all the ills in the world !
Having said that I agree with the too much praise and too much blame...HOWEVER you ACTUALLY DO WHAT YOU ARE CRITICIZING..YOU blame the right wing for all the ills of the market...you generalize and call all right wingers haters. YOUR attitude is the problem...it all depends on the party with folks like you. The generalizations only apply when YOU apply them.
Obama did not cause the drop...he will not be responsble when it rises. HE IS supposed to be responsible for exerting leadership and honesty, which he has not.
|
You're exactly right, Bucco.
And you're further right when you suggest that President Bush is
not responsible for "all the ills of the world". If one wanted to blame him for making decisions that only the executive branch can make, or blame him for not vetoing irresponsible legislation passed by the Congress, then they'd be right.
If you really think about it, Congress under the control of two different political parties is "zero for two" in passing two different pieces of legislation which are important causes for the increases in deficit spending and the national debt we're so concerned about now--the "Bush" tax cuts and TARP and the 2010 stimulus legislation. Those things, plus the cost of the wars, are huge elements of the debt we've run up in the last decade or so.
But blaming either President Bush or President Obama solely for the resulting problem? No way!
I think President Bush can be blamed for getting us into two wars and keeping us there for almost his entire two terms and the cost thereof. President Obama continued those wars and actually approved a surge in both personnel and spending. Those costs are on his ledger.
The "Bush tax cuts"? Bush may have suggested them--I can't even remember--but it was
Congress who passed them on a purely partisan and political basis. The argument at the time was that the extra money flowing into the economy would create spending, jobs and economic growth. And if you recall, like the "stimulus" spending of 2008-2010, those tax cuts didn't have the intended effect either.
President Obama? The stimulus packages were designed by the executive branch and passed by Congress. They haven't worked either. It was a good try--something had to be done at the time to unfreeze the banking system--but long term the stimulus investments didn't work as intended. Obama has to take responsibility for that.
I think that notwithstanding the personal distaste or even hatred people might have for a President for political or ideological reasons, we shouldn't forget what a President can really do and what they are really responsible for. What they really can accomplish from their perch in the oval office is a whole lot less than what they get blamed for.
"Leadership and honesty"? How many of the following list can you give high marks to on those counts? Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Obama? Not more than just a few, in my opinion.
But what's the old saying?
"Heavy is the head that wears the crown."