Thanks to the ongoing debate over health care, the American people are starting to become more aware of the way our government is spending our money. The American people are also aware of the fact that it is indeed their own money that is being spent, and they are becoming less content with that overspending each and every day, as they should be.
Well, the hardcore liberals are now doing what they do best: they are deflecting the blame to the previous President and taking no responsibility for their own actions. After all, it is much easier to deflect the blame on someone else than it is to actually take responsibility for one's own actions. Thankfully, there are not as many buying into this idea as before.
First, let me say that I am a supporter of former President George W. Bush. He did his best to protect this country from those who were bent on destroying it. As commander-in-chief, he took that responsibility seriously, and I am thankful for that. However, in his second term, along with a Republican-led Congress, he supported spending programs that were contrary to conservative principles and led us into a lot of debt. (Let's be clear: It is Congress that writes the checks. The President only signs the bills. However, President Bush did not veto these spending plans, which thus shows no disagreement with the bills he was signing.)
Many Bush supporters (and especially conservatives) were (and still are) unhappy about the out-of-control spending that took place during that second term. Many conservatives spoke out about it then, and they continue to speak out about it, so there is not hypocrisy happening. The Democrats, for the most part, were partakers in the spending under President Bush, but they separated themselves from it for electoral purposes only. They are the hypocrites in all of this.
And while the spending spree in the last few years of the Bush Administration was unwise and financially reckless, it pales in comparison to the spending that the Obama Administration is now partaking in. It is President Obama's contention that this spending is necessary to get us out of a recession. He believes that the government needs to spend this money in order to dig our country out of a financial hole that we now find ourselves. And, somehow, it is all President Bush's fault.
Blaming President Bush for anything has been commonplace for at least the last 8 years. It is almost comical the lengths that people go to in order to blame Bush. But why are they doing it?
First, I believe they are blaming President Bush in order to take attention off of the health care debate and the fact that they are losing the fight (at least, for right now). When you are losing the battle, blame someone else in order to draw the attention away from the fact that you are losing. It is a classic misdirection - try to get someone focused on something other than the main issue and you might be able to sneak it through.
Second, they need a bogeyman to hide their own shortcomings and failures. These guys have a Democrat controlled House and Senate (and the majorities are significant). There is nothing that the Republicans can do to stop legislation. Yet, they still cannot get some of their key issues through Congress.
Third, they are blaming President Bush because they do not like him. This, of course, is no secret. They hated this man. Many would have been happy if President Bush had just died, or been shot. Now, we have the Obama Administration trying to feed off of this perceived, supposedly still-lingering Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The Obama Administration is trying to sell the American people on the fact that this excessive spending (whether Cap-and -Trade, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care, TARP, etc) is necessary in order to bring this country back from a recession caused by the Bush Administration. I am having trouble trying to understand this concept. If it was wrong for the deficit to reach annual rates of $500,000,000,000, then how can it be OK for the government to go at least $1,500,000,000,000 in the hole this year alone in order to dig out of the hole?
This is a deficit at least 3x larger than any deficit we ever saw under the Bush Administration. In fact, there are some estimates now that show this year's deficit will be larger than all 8 years of budget deficits under George Bush, combined. And there is no end in sight to this madness. The liberals that are currently running the country are trying to find new and unique ways to spend our money. Instead of paring back government, they are trying to introduce government to new areas where they do not yet have a presence.
The founding fathers of this great country saw to it that the power of the government was to be limited. There were some basic areas where the government needed to be involved, but for the most part, powers were given to the states or to the people. The founding fathers did not want to see a government that was involved in every phase of our lives. Over the past 200+ years, government has slowly added to their power, while taking away the power of the state and the power of the people. Let us not forget the the role of the government is to protect our freedom and to clear the path so that Americans can chase their dreams and their goals without the fear of the government punishing them for being successful.
So my message to President Obama is this: Take responsibility for the decisions that you and your administration are making. We know that you do not want to admit to this, but this is what you have wanted to do. We know you wanted people to be dependent on government and not on themselves. Stop blaming others. Admit that these are your goals. Be proud of your achievements. And start packing, because if you continue down this path, you are destined for a one-term presidency.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Economic Ignorance of our President
President Obama was speaking to the sycophantic Democrats that we call our Congressman and Senators (and the media) last night. News clips show him being full of angst at the slow path his economic recovery plan is taking through the U.S. Senate. He wants this bill to be passed swiftly and put into operation as soon as possible.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Bush Legacy
Webster's defines the word legacy as "something handed down from an ancestor or from the past." In other words, it is something handed down to younger generations that causes us to remember someone or something that came before us.
There is a considerable rush at this time to state what the Bush legacy is going to be. Many foreign papers today are stating that Bush was an abject failure as President. This is also the feeling of most papers within the U.S.
The international community does not like President Bush because of his single-handed approach to fighting the terrorist threat that faces us on a daily basis. He did not want to do it their way. He was a renegade. They are also now fond of blaming him for the current financial situation. It will not be long before they blame him for the plane that landed in the Hudson last week.
Liberals and the media elite in the U.S. do not like him because he has ruined the American goodwill with other nations. He is not an environmental zealot. He had the audacity to try to protect the U.S. from being attacked again. He was a divider, not a uniter.
According to recent polls (which I am sure are bias-free), the majority of people view President Bush as the worst President ever. It is hard to believe that anyone could have forgotten about Jimmy Carter, but we tend to cloud our view of history with what we see going on in the present.
With all this being said, let me offer my opinion: You cannot judge a man's legacy at the time he is leaving office. Only history will be able to tell us how good of a President that Mr. Bush has been. I believe that history will be kind to him, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. He saw to it that we went after the terrorists; he did not want to wait for them to come back at us. As time goes by, people will understand that this was the right thing to do.
The American people want to see America remain a superpower. They do not want to cede that power to other countries, or especially to the UN. Other nations are upset with us because we are taking the leadership role, and they want to drag us down. They use the UN as a collective body to try and pull the U.S. down from its leadership position. President Bush would not let that happen, and for that he deserves our gratitude. The only other thing he possibly could have done that would have benefited us more would have been to jettison the UN from New York City and level the place.
Other nations complain about our leadership position in the world, yet they know where to come when they face a crisis. Do we remember the tsunami in Indonesia? It was the U.S. people that gave millions of dollars. It was the U.S. government that gave millions of dollars. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars to help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. The U.S. has been so generous to other countries through the 2 terms of President Bush. Yet, he receives no accolades for this, nor does he seek them. And the international community conveniently forgets the times we have bailed them out.
We hear about the budget surpluses that existed when President Bush became President and the deficits that he has created since being President. One thing people fail to remember is that it is not the President that spends the money for the U.S. government. It is Congress. Because of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's, we had surpluses. It was not President Clinton. He happened to be the President at the time, so he gets the credit. Likewise, President Bush is not the cause of today's government deficits (although some of his policies have led to higher spending). It is due to Congress not being able to control spending. They need to be held accountable for that.
Even some liberal causes that Bush helped to further were snubbed by the liberals: No Child Left Behind, immigration, bailouts, health care. There are areas where he tried to reach out, yet the liberals were not willing to meet in the middle. They had an utter disdain for this man. They give him credit for nothing. And the media reports these things as Bush failures, not as the failures of liberal ideas.
They also like to blame President Bush for ruining the bi-partisan goodwill after 9/11. If I recall, it was the liberals who started to attack this man because he actually wanted to go after the terrorists who were determined to attack us. Actually, they never stopped attacking him for winning the 2000 Presidential election. It was not the President who went after the liberals. Rather, he stayed true to his beliefs, his principles, his ideals. He did not waiver. The liberals (including the media) attached the President.
President Bush is a good man. Yes, he has his faults, as we all do. He proposed things that I did not (and still do not) agree with. However, he is a man of principle and character. He did not make up his mind based on the latest opinion poll. He stayed true to what he thought was right, whether or not other people agreed with him. That is what I want in a leader. A true leader does not change his ideas based on the political climate. Rather, he remains true to his ideas. That is what I will remember and appreciate about this President.
There is a considerable rush at this time to state what the Bush legacy is going to be. Many foreign papers today are stating that Bush was an abject failure as President. This is also the feeling of most papers within the U.S.
The international community does not like President Bush because of his single-handed approach to fighting the terrorist threat that faces us on a daily basis. He did not want to do it their way. He was a renegade. They are also now fond of blaming him for the current financial situation. It will not be long before they blame him for the plane that landed in the Hudson last week.
Liberals and the media elite in the U.S. do not like him because he has ruined the American goodwill with other nations. He is not an environmental zealot. He had the audacity to try to protect the U.S. from being attacked again. He was a divider, not a uniter.
According to recent polls (which I am sure are bias-free), the majority of people view President Bush as the worst President ever. It is hard to believe that anyone could have forgotten about Jimmy Carter, but we tend to cloud our view of history with what we see going on in the present.
With all this being said, let me offer my opinion: You cannot judge a man's legacy at the time he is leaving office. Only history will be able to tell us how good of a President that Mr. Bush has been. I believe that history will be kind to him, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. He saw to it that we went after the terrorists; he did not want to wait for them to come back at us. As time goes by, people will understand that this was the right thing to do.
The American people want to see America remain a superpower. They do not want to cede that power to other countries, or especially to the UN. Other nations are upset with us because we are taking the leadership role, and they want to drag us down. They use the UN as a collective body to try and pull the U.S. down from its leadership position. President Bush would not let that happen, and for that he deserves our gratitude. The only other thing he possibly could have done that would have benefited us more would have been to jettison the UN from New York City and level the place.
Other nations complain about our leadership position in the world, yet they know where to come when they face a crisis. Do we remember the tsunami in Indonesia? It was the U.S. people that gave millions of dollars. It was the U.S. government that gave millions of dollars. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars to help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. The U.S. has been so generous to other countries through the 2 terms of President Bush. Yet, he receives no accolades for this, nor does he seek them. And the international community conveniently forgets the times we have bailed them out.
We hear about the budget surpluses that existed when President Bush became President and the deficits that he has created since being President. One thing people fail to remember is that it is not the President that spends the money for the U.S. government. It is Congress. Because of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's, we had surpluses. It was not President Clinton. He happened to be the President at the time, so he gets the credit. Likewise, President Bush is not the cause of today's government deficits (although some of his policies have led to higher spending). It is due to Congress not being able to control spending. They need to be held accountable for that.
Even some liberal causes that Bush helped to further were snubbed by the liberals: No Child Left Behind, immigration, bailouts, health care. There are areas where he tried to reach out, yet the liberals were not willing to meet in the middle. They had an utter disdain for this man. They give him credit for nothing. And the media reports these things as Bush failures, not as the failures of liberal ideas.
They also like to blame President Bush for ruining the bi-partisan goodwill after 9/11. If I recall, it was the liberals who started to attack this man because he actually wanted to go after the terrorists who were determined to attack us. Actually, they never stopped attacking him for winning the 2000 Presidential election. It was not the President who went after the liberals. Rather, he stayed true to his beliefs, his principles, his ideals. He did not waiver. The liberals (including the media) attached the President.
President Bush is a good man. Yes, he has his faults, as we all do. He proposed things that I did not (and still do not) agree with. However, he is a man of principle and character. He did not make up his mind based on the latest opinion poll. He stayed true to what he thought was right, whether or not other people agreed with him. That is what I want in a leader. A true leader does not change his ideas based on the political climate. Rather, he remains true to his ideas. That is what I will remember and appreciate about this President.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
President Bush's Legacy
We all know that the effectiveness of a President cannot be judged at the time he leaves office. It takes time to see how the man's policies, the appointments he made to the courts, and the bills that he signed have affected the world in which we live.
The liberals and the media have been whacking the President for 8 years now. He is stupid. He lets the VP do the governing. He does not have a clue. He is just a bad President, possibly the worst of all time. His approval ratings are the lowest ever. He has made us the laughingstock of the world. No one likes us anymore (even though they know who to go to to bail them out of trouble).
And with them repeating this refrain every day for 8 years, many people find themselves believing this line of thinking. I was eating lunch with my department today, and several people chimed in with this same line of thinking. Apparently, we have forgotten how to think critically. We hear someone else's opinion, and we just adopt it as our own without stopping to think about it and validate its premise.
Well, I came across this article today, stating that the President's legacy could turn out better than we think (or we have been told that it would). This will do mainly to his proactive stance on protecting the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The author talks about economic issues that will help him out (although I fail to see his point on that).
Anyway, let the man leave office and let some time go by before we judge him in comparison to past Presidents. I think we will see how his tax cuts for one and all were beneficial for helping us in the shadow of 9/11 come back stronger than before. We will see how his leadership of the country against despots, tyrants, and terrorists helped make the U.S. a stronger country. We will see how his appointments of 2 fine men to the Supreme Court will help shape the court for years to come.
The liberals and the media have been whacking the President for 8 years now. He is stupid. He lets the VP do the governing. He does not have a clue. He is just a bad President, possibly the worst of all time. His approval ratings are the lowest ever. He has made us the laughingstock of the world. No one likes us anymore (even though they know who to go to to bail them out of trouble).
And with them repeating this refrain every day for 8 years, many people find themselves believing this line of thinking. I was eating lunch with my department today, and several people chimed in with this same line of thinking. Apparently, we have forgotten how to think critically. We hear someone else's opinion, and we just adopt it as our own without stopping to think about it and validate its premise.
Well, I came across this article today, stating that the President's legacy could turn out better than we think (or we have been told that it would). This will do mainly to his proactive stance on protecting the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The author talks about economic issues that will help him out (although I fail to see his point on that).
Anyway, let the man leave office and let some time go by before we judge him in comparison to past Presidents. I think we will see how his tax cuts for one and all were beneficial for helping us in the shadow of 9/11 come back stronger than before. We will see how his leadership of the country against despots, tyrants, and terrorists helped make the U.S. a stronger country. We will see how his appointments of 2 fine men to the Supreme Court will help shape the court for years to come.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who are the haters??
I have been frustrated over the course of the last eight years over the treatment that President George W. Bush has received from Democrats, the media, Europeans, and liberal people, in general. These groups seem to stir up the 'Bush is playing on your fears' card at every turn. They talk about he has involved himself in the 'politics of personal destruction.'
During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).
Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.
However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.
So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?
During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).
Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.
However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.
So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)