2006 marked the peak of the housing market, record setting household debt, a record trade deficit and declining GDP throughout the year. The stage was set for falling housing prices in 2007 and the start of the great recession.

Not quite the "thriving, robust, economy" as you assert.

Using your methodology of selective, analysis free reasoning it sure is easy to make it right eh?

-spence

It's "not entirely untrue" that spending is the problem. Actually it is entirely true that it is--regardless of Left/Right, Democrat/Republican.

And why is Obama still running against Bush. Isn't he aware that the left's marketing engine is less than 1/2 as effective as the Right's?

seems to be a common theme here recently with the Obama relativism from the usual suspects :uhuh:

REUTERS
Obama accuses Congress of holding back U.S. recovery

By Laura MacInnis

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass., Aug 20 (Reuters) - A vacationing U.S. President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking "common sense" measures he said would create jobs and help growth.

"The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That's the problem right now. That's what's holding this country back," the president said in his weekly radio address, which is also transmitted on the Internet.

Obama Blames His Low Approval Ratings on Unhappiness With Washington
August 21, 2011

VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. (AP) — President Barack Obama says his low approval rating is a reflection of public unhappiness with Congress.

Obama tells CBS in an interview broadcast Sunday that he’s “impacted,” just like Congress, when people aren’t happy with Washington.

He says he understands that his arguments(lies and distortions) that the country would have been worse off if he hadn‘t taken certain actions don’t resonate with the millions of unemployed people.
hey, he got something right:jump1:

You're wanting an answer to your question and not the question I was answering.

The issue was on making excuses. I'd say they've both done it.
Bush was pretty consistent in remarking that 9/11 happened because previous administrations (Clinton/Reagan) actions made America look vulnerable. While there's probably some truth to that, it's also an excuse to distract from accusations the Whitehouse wasn't paying attention. Not to mention the whole "they hate us for our freedom" press campaign which was about as excuse heavy as they get.

Not sure I'd consider it a ploy, rather he's just trying to defend against those who would brand the economic woes on him personally.

I'd like to think he could do better, although he's also in quite a pickle. There's very little Obama can do, perhaps aside from another large stimulus, that would spur short-term growth in time to impact the election. And now that we've been through the credit circle jerk even that would likely be impossible. It will be interesting to hear his upcoming pitch on the subject, his reelection could hang on it.

He's also blamed rampant spending as well. I don't think he's ever said it's all Bush's fault.

Well, yes and no.

A budget doesn't have to include all liabilities like a balance sheet would. So technically speaking Clinton did balance the budget, but just not with a long-term plan to pay the debts.

Because of the war and the timing of the second recession. McCain wasn't in charge for either of these and had no plan to address any differently than Bush would, yet Bush generated a more emotional response from the electorate. Play to win...

There are multiple issues here to judge. Was Iraq the proper strategic play? Was the war justified to the American people? Was the war executed well?

The first question will be debated forever. As things sit right now I see both positive and negative aspects.

The second question I do think has played out and the answer is no. Despite the bias of some contemporary commentators, there's simply too large a body of first hand accounts to not be able to construct a fairly complete picture.

The third question is a mix. Certainly the pre-war planning appeared to be deficient and some would argue downright ignorant of local cultures. Much of this seemed to be addressed with new leadership over time which has allowed our efforts to be more productive.

What's sure is that the last two questions will always dog the first.

I would say that deficit spending, short-term'ism and revenue generation are all big problems.

To say that spending is "the"problem ignores the realities of the current situation. Even if we pass massive spending cuts there will still be projected deficits for the next decade+.

Spending cuts, revenue generation and other means to encourage business growth should all be on the table.

Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?

-spence

again, please provide some evidence to back up your claim because the Bush crowd was quite frustrated with the President in his unwillingness to respond to detractors and point out the "root" of many of the issues that he faced....Obama, on the otherhand, has turned the blame game into a part-time job to go along with his other part-time job as president...

Perhaps your assertion he's running against Bush is a product of effective marketing?
-spence

if Obama is engaged in "effective marketing" for his reelection currently...I hope he keeps it up....

Of course it is. But it isn't the Republican/ conservative/ right wing putting the words in his mouth.