I see a lot of Conservative (and conveniently self-proclaimed 'Independent') commenters whine about how Obama supporters (most of whom were called traitors by them for 7 1/2 years for not 'supporting their president') are repeatedly blaming the Bush administration for our current financial situation.

But wait, there's more.

Those same Conservatives (and rainy day Independents) put the blame squarely on the six-month-old Obama Administration - absolving the Bush Administration of any and all wrong-doing.

How convenient.

The reality of the situation is that the current financial crisis (the same one that's existence was denied for nearly two years by Bush as a 'hiccup,' or 'speedbump') was finally acknowledged in 2007 and was a result of poor planning and overspending (as well as over-borrowing to pay for the overspending) to cover two wars and a slowing economy.

We're at the beginning of the implementation of plans to slow this recession so it doesn't end our country (and the world along with it).  How can anyone expect immediate results within such a short time frame?  Even Obama said this would take months - and possibly years - to effectively stabilize the economy.

So what's the difference between blaming Bush and blaming Obama?

Well, to get the answer, one must ask what is the difference between eight year and six months, or ask what the difference is between causing a problem and inheriting and attempting to fix it.

The real difference is the argument against Obama is ripe with future predictions and doomsday prognoses.  Every sentence spoken is in the future tense.  What has happened is historical fact.  Bush's eight years in office is history - along with every mistake he made - is in the books.

The true fact here is that when you topically transfer blame from one administration to the other, and then pounce on others for placing blame on the previous administration by citing history, you most certainly have made a serious (and questioningly contradictory) mistake.