5 Ways Bush Helped Elect Obama

[show_avatar email=mbuel76@gmail.com align=right user_link=website show_postcount=true]

1) Bush’s support of the minimum wage increase.

The minimum wage is a socialist policy.  Any time the Government tries to exert force over the market The vast majority of business leaders start at the bottom.

(which is made up of individuals), it’s exerting tyranny over the people.  Minimum wage controls, do not help disperse poverty, or increase the labor force.  They decrease the labor force, increase poverty, and decrease future business leadership.

Higher minimum wages lead directly to the rise in unemployment. (Fox Business News, source of image)

I have much more to say about the minimum wage, and why it’s unnecessary and will do so in a future blog post.  Briefly, it doesn’t fix poverty, it displaces labor, it creates grey and black markets for labor. Since the Republicans supported the minimum wage increase then, why don’t they know?  Do they hate the poor, like the left proclaims?

 

Henry J. Kaiser Foundation

 

2) Bush’s policies of Medicare Part D and Various Federal aid programs, that Democrats complain about, but refuse to repeal.
Throughout the 2006 to 2010 election cycle the Democrats complained 1). This includes the Iraq War and Medicare Part D.  Medicare Part D, for all intents and purposes is another 800 pound gorilla of debt.  Like Obamacare, if not cut it will bankrupt America. The Bush administration over eight years added 33% to the national debt (by 2012).

 

The Democrats don’t really want to cut it, they just use it as a wedge issue, to blame Republicans for massive spending. As far as African aid goes, it would be better spent from the private sector.  Most government aid, to every country is wasted money.  It’s also the reason those countries don’t spend the free money very well.
As well meaning as all of these programs are, they become more and more unsustainable as we go forward.  It doesn’t matter which party passes well meaning laws, if we run out of money, we run out of money.

 

Associated Press

3) Bush’s Democracy projects, to try and change the world.

We won the war in Iraq against Saddham Hussein.  After 8 long years, Obama finished the policies (badly, which I’ll get to.) declaring that the mission has been accomplished.

But what is the result of that accomplishment?  Thousands of lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan to bring savages “democracy”.  As if Democracy is a sacred goal?  Democracy is tyranny of the majority.  You know what the majority in Iraq wants?

Tyranny of the Caliphate.

news.vice.com

Not Bush’s fault you say?  Certainly not completely, Obama left Iraq a vacuum of power.  However, the people of Iraq, by a majority are okay with the Islamic Caliphate of ISIS taking control of Iraq.  If Saddham Hussein was still in control of Iraq, there would be no ISIS.

The people have spoken.  Democracy is a dangerous ideal, our founders despised direct democracies. (That’s why we’re a Republic) This is again an issue of empathy versus money. We simply can’t free every country from their brutal dictator, and like Iraq, many of these people will just choose another brutal dictator.

associated press
Conservatives criticize Obama’s stimulus, but not Bush’s?  You wonder why the American’s don’t see the Republicans as an alternative to the Democrats?
The stimulus delayed the recovery in 2003. Greenspan blamed the war, it was Keynesianism that delayed the recovery.  The recovery kicked in to high gear, in late 2004 after the stimulus spending died down. It didn’t work for FDR, why would it work now (or then for Bush)?How can we consistently be against Obama’s stimulus, if Bush’s was okay?

 

michellemalkin.com

5) The attack on the freedom to fail (TARP, GM Bailouts, etc)

Michelle Malkin and Reason both, had great write ups on how Bush completely abandoned the free market principles that made this country great to “save” the free market system.  In fact, he set in place policies and government expansion that allowed Obama and his cronies.  The Financial Regulations put in place by Barney Frank, and his equally idiotic compatriot Chris Dodd.  The two buffoons who didn’t see a problem with Fannie and Freddie, wrote 2500 pages of regulations for the banking industry.

It’s not talked about much, however the Dodd-Frank financial bill is the Obamacare of the financial world.

Clarion Ledger – Marshall Ramsey

It happened, because Bush started the path allowing the Federal Governmetn to control private banking through TARP.  The goal?  Fix a problem caused by Democrats, Government and Obama.

While this may seem very negative of former President Bush, it’s brutally honest.  If I had a choice, I’d still vote for Bush over Gore or Kerry in 2004.  Just look at the colossal joke that John Kerry is in our State Department.  Reflection of past mistakes is necessary if we expect to improve.  Bush like Hoover, was a “pre-socializer”.  Hoover tried to expand Government
to help those suffering from the recession.  He even started the New Deal.  In my opinion, part of being a Constitutional Conservative or Libertarian is being a student of history, and seeing where policies fail, and where they are repeated.  Obama similar to FDR tried massive spending to save the economy. By his own graph, we’d be better off today without the stimulus.  That doesn’t even take into account that Obama’s BLS has changed the way the U6 is reported.  Labor Force Participation hasn’t been at 62.8% since Jimmy Carter.

Remember though, all of the acceptance for Obama’s policies came from Bush doing it first.  As childish as it is to point your finger at the other guy, and spout, “HE STARTED IT!”, Bush truly did start it.  Ultimately, that’s why Romney was a bad choice for competing for that seat.

Romney passed the predecessor to Obamacare.  Ryan accepted stimulus spending for Wisconsin.  If the Republican party doesn’t differentiate itself from the Democrat party, why would anyone vote for them?

Obama’s Redemption?

130312_obama_senate_reu_605

Conservatives love to despise Barack Obama.  The first reason is because he was a neophyte with little experience that rose to the top leadership position in the world, mostly riding his media status.  Second, because he is arrogant and espouses his moral superiority, even when being a hypocrite about it.  Third, because his own analysis of his leadership skills is woefully incorrect.

On most of the grand issues of the day, Mr. Obama has taken the wrong path. He could have built a stimulus program in early 2009 that actually promoted job growth.  He could have pushed Democrats to build a health care plan that reduced and restrained costs instead of increasing them.  And then for the last two years, he could have pushed tax reform and entitlement changes instead of reverting to the classic tax and spend mantra that has haunted liberals for decades.

But he has always taken a pass.

Last week proves hope springs eternal.  Mr. Obama invited a group of Republican Senators to dinner to talk about how to move forward in his final four years as an American President.  And according to reports, Obama was more open and honest than he has been in the past.

Despite liberal whining about how much Barack Obama has had to endure from Republicans, the reality is he has never faced an opponent greater than himself.  Obama’s primary problem through out his Presidency is the inability to tell everyone, including his own party, to ‘Go to hell’, and simply lead on an issue.

Leadership, true leadership, begets public support.  See Rand Paul’s crusade on civil rights and drones last week, ironically occurring the same time as Obama’s dinner round table with the GOP.  This wasn’t an issue that the media, Republicans or Democrats for the most part cared about.  But the public did care.  There is a growing unease of the every expanding power of the President when it comes to such things as drones.  Paul simply was willing to take a stand, even if he knew there was no path to victory in his endeavor.

Obama has never done that.  Can you think of a stand Obama took that was not cautious, thought out, and strategically positioned in such a way that Obama could either back down or blame someone else for its failure?

During his dinner with the GOP, Obama seemed reluctant to lead on the issues, again.  From Peggy Noonan, from an unnamed Senator at the meeting:

Senator No. 1: When pressed on the question, the president seemed to step back. “His idea of a process is, ‘You guys figure it out and work with my staff, and if you need me call me.’ But in the end, unless the president really gets engaged and forces meeting after meeting, I don’t see how you get past the logjam.”

…or this…

Senator No. 2: “At the end I mentioned, ‘Share [with us] how you see this going forward.’ ” Here the president “got hazy. . . . I told him this will never work without adult supervision from the White House. I don’t think he comprehends that this is part of getting something done.”

Senator No. 2 said he planned to “press” the president in coming days “to lead, to exert authority.”

Obama, at this moment, has a chance to lead.  What does he honestly have to lose?  He was a solid victory for re-election, is the undisputed leader of his party, with Democrats (even if they disagree with him) willing to go to the mat for him.  He will never face election again, and the only thing remaining in his future his his legacy, which at the moment, is mixed.

But is the President willing to use that political capital?  The above quotes lead you to believe the answer is ‘No’.  A report from the Politico states more than half of the Democrats in Congress oppose any changes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which is fiscally insane.  Another quote from Noonan’s article:

At certain points in the conversation the president, according to the senator, said that even if he wanted to agree with the Republicans on certain specific questions there would be a rebellion in his own party: “He said that a few times. But that’s an abdication. You have to lead! You have to educate as only a president can with a bully pulpit, you have to bring your party along.”

Tuesday was the first time that I can remember that President Obama speaking to his liberal caucus, and telling them hard truths. Obama met with Senate Democrats, and was up front for the need for entitlement reform.  He stated his need to exchange entitlement cuts for more taxes.  We can debate the numbers and the actual specifics, but for Obama to tell liberals they will have fundamental changes to entitlement programs is some what of a breakthrough.

A tremendous amount of opposition to this kind of plan exists among the liberal base, and I am not sure that the President realizes what kind of fight he is in with his own party if he is honest about achieving these goals.  And of course, from our side, we conservatives have a huge trust deficit with this President, after 5 years of having the football pulled out from under us, Charlie Brown-style.  Mr. Obama will have to be forthright and honest through out the process to build enough respect and faith to get such a big deal done.

I have long said this is not an intellectual barrier for the President, but a psychological one.  Barack Obama has long been a cautious person, unwilling to take public stands that reflect poorly on his character or his public persona. Maybe this is what comes from being America’s greatest African American politician; maybe it is a reflection of African American society today to avoid risk.  I don’t know.  But I know that reality exists for this man.

So ultimately, Mr. Obama could lead.  He could get a grand bargain of tax reform, entitlement recalculation, and budgetary changes that could put the country on a long term path of fiscal sanity and economic prosperity.  It would mean he would have to compromise with the GOP and push back against liberals in his own party.  Ironically, I seem to believe the latter is much harder for this President than the former.

This was cross posted at Neoavatara