If Only Obama Had Been An Irresponsible Spender Like Bush Was

It’s fashionable, of late, for the left to justify Obama’s run-away deficit spending by criticizing his predecessor George W. Bush’s deficit spending. And there’s some validity in that. Bush and Republicans overspent too and added significantly to the national debt.

But it’s worth keeping in mind that while Bush and Republicans were no paragons of thriftiness, Obama is in a class all his own.

The evidence is in this comparison worked up by Randall Hoeven:

ABush vs. Obama is like comparing a slow boat to national insolvency to a rocket ship to national insolvency, but the comparison is worthwhile just to illustrate how radical spending growth has been under Obama.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • robert108

    It’s all about the numbers.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    But, Bush! Two unpaid for wars!! Hope and Change!!!

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Bush was the evil John the Baptist preparing the way for the evil Messiah, so it is with a certain amount of horror that I realize that I miss Bush, but then Aesop’s log would have been a better President than either of them.

  • 914

    Bush was a ‘spender’, Barry is a ‘splurger’.

    It’s in the nuance.

    • Guest

      Bush didn’t pay, so the cons loved him.  Now Obama is trying to pay for Bush and himself, so the cons hate him.


      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        “the cons loved him”  Man, are you full of shit.

        • Guest

          The ones on this blog did, almost without exception, until 2007 or 2008.  Then there were a few things that, in retrospect, they didn’t like.

          Man are you full of shit.

          I remember being called a terrorist for even questioning Bush’s policy back then.  Man are you full of shit. (comma? my name’s not ‘man’)

          But you are a newbie on this blog compared to some of us.  And most of us who have been on here for five or six years have really poor memories.

          • Guest

            “I remember being called a terrorist”

            And now you’re just a common drunk.

          • robert108

            He was called a terrorist because he supported the terrorists.

          • A Citizen

            I can recall him defending his “buds” Hamas and Hezbollah while screeching that Israel be tossed to the “wolves”.

          • Guest

            You sound like another neocon whose only concern
            is Isreael.

          • Guest

            To people like you, supporting the terrorists means not being a war mongering neocon who thinks Muslims should wiped from the earth.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I don’t know what conservatives you know, but I know a lot of them, and they were incensed at Bush’s spending policies.

            I am glad that you know your name.

            “But you are a newbie on this blog compared to some of us.  And most of
            us who have been on here for five or six years have really poor

            Sense?  Please clarify.

        • $8194357

          Don’t hold back flame. lol

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Sometimes there is just one way to say it.

      • robert108

        The numbers prove you and obama to be liars, little sparkie.  The debt has increased exponentially since the obama/pelosi cabal took power.
        It’s also a lie that President Bush was a conservative.  We supported him in his fight against terrorism, and little else, while you Dems attempted to have us cut and run from the terrorists.  Now that we’re no longer fighting them effectively over there, they are coming here, just like President Bush predicted.

  • mikemc1970

    Bush spent, Obama wastes.

    • Khollis33

      Bush wasted…..Obama just wastes a lot more

  • Guest

    Obama now has to pay for Bush’s interest since Bush didn’t pay for shit.

    • http://sayanything.flywheelsites.com Rob

      It’s absolutely true that Bush had a bad record on deficit spending.  But to suggest that Obama is simply creating up Bush’s messes, and not creating much larger messes of his own, is utter nonsense.

      • LastBestHope

        War was declared on America early in W’s first term. War is expensive but far less so than surrender. Bush spent with a purpose that focused on the nation’s defense, with the support of the Congress and The People. This was necessary and even honorable spending.
        Obama’s “Stimulus” early in his term was actually a raid on the nation’s treasury. It had ZERO support from the GOP and the majority of The People were against throwing a trillion $ at anything and everything. The money of course evaporated without a tangible benefit to the country (but large benefit to Dem Party faithful) This was corrupt spending without the common good in mind.
        So to say both Bush and Obama were/are big spenders and share the same blame for our debt is like saying the CIA and the KGB were the same people and thus morally equivalent. 
        Bill Buckley addressed this kind of false comparison: “To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around

        • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

          I believe that a comparison between the KGB and the IRS is far more accurate.

        • Guest

          The Iraq war was not defending America, it was a neocons wet dream to save a nation that wasn’t under attack, Israel.

          I will bet every conservative here supported that waste and loss of life.

  • sanity

    Something needed in those figures as well would be the difference in jobs and growth of the economy and where the unemployment / under employed numbers are.

  • 914

    It  is impossible to know how Bush’s term would have went without the traumatic economic hit of 911.  

    Barry’s -14 trillion baby punishing is of his own making. He had full control of the government and chose to enrich his cronie minions instead of implementing tax cuts. They work every time they are tried by the way. 

    The government has become way to big to run effectively as bloated big ego politico’s like Barabus are not public servants but aristocratic blue blood pontificating blow-hards. 

    C’mon’ 2012!!

  • headward

    Bush’s tax cuts increased revenues.  I think the rates could come down even further to find that sweet spot for tax revenues in the Laffer Curve.

  • Jamermorrow

    It is not only the spending under Bush but the lowering of interest rates under Greenspan. Bush and Greenspan orchestrated an artificial boom by having cheap money and low interest rates. The cure is the recession but Obama is not allowing the recession to run its course. What if the artificial boom was the problem and recessions are the cure? Until politicians figure this out no recovery will come.

  • A Citizen

    And you sound just like Hanni the troll!! Or is it Larry, Edd, Willhunt, Joe or Bloggerman today? Or are you just a drunk Sparkle?

  • A Citizen

    Yup…that’s Hannitheturd.or are you Sparkie going under cover? You both sound so much alike.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    Liberal thinking is governed by a small number of talking points.  That is why they often sound the same.  They write these talking points on the palms of their hands after they shave off the hair.