This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Voice From Our Antithetics

Watauga Watch left a comment on our post "Western North Carolina Tea Party Summit in Hickory...":

Barack Obama's election and relentless pursuit of health care reform led to the emergence of a new political movement -- the "Tea Party" -- which claims the Obama presidency is reckless and irresponsible in its spending. Their evidence is quite limited and includes the new health care law, priced at $940 billion over 10 years, or $94 billion per year. Never mind the fact that the costs of the health care law are paid for without adding a penny to the national debt.

What I'd like to know from any "Tea Party" member is ... where were you during the Bush administration? The costs of the war in Iraq are now $721 billion over seven years, or $103 billion per year, more than the health care law. And all of the war costs under President Bush were paid for using emergency appropriations outside of the normal budget process. Thus every penny spent on the Iraq war is added to the national debt!

Perhaps "Tea Party" members see war and health care reform as apples and oranges. I agree. The health care bill pays for itself and helps people, while the war adds to the debt and kills people! Assuming we just ignore the war, though, what about President Bush's Medicare expansion in 2003? This law costs $720 billion over 10 years, or $72 billion per year, and every penny of the costs were added on to the national debt. Yet this did not upset you enough to form a "Tea Party" movement.

And what about the $700 billion bailout of big business by Bush? No "Tea Party" movement for that either (in fact, you guys seem to think it was Obama that organized the bailout!). Yet you attack Obama for the 2009 stimulus plan, priced at $787 billion. Criticisms of the stimulus aside, many economists say it did save our economy from a major depression, and it is even helping expand Highway 421 here in Boone!

Your lack of criticism of President Bush is clear proof that your criticism of President Obama is not rooted in principles such as small government or fiscal responsibility but instead in partisan ideology. In other words, you are out in the streets because Obama is a Democratic president, plain and simple. So spare us the "devotion to the Constitution."

Analysis of White house budget data shows that the three presidents who most added to the national debt were all Republicans, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Yet neither of the Bush administrations prompted a "Tea Party" movement, and you hold President Reagan up to be this godlike figure who supposedly stood for conservative values such as small government and fiscal responsibility. It is just not true.

Almost nothing the "Tea Party" members say can be taken seriously. I'd laugh out loud if it were not so scary and dangerous. There are thousands of angry and uninformed people who actually believe Obama is a socialist, a communist, a Muslim, a totalitarian dictator, a foreign citizen, and even the anti-Christ who wants the terrorists to win! And they're generating societal unease based on these absurd beliefs.

So I ask you again: Where were you during the Bush administration? And the other Bush administration? And the Reagan administration? And why do you believe these ridiculous things?

Additionally I am curious if you know that your movement is led by lobbyist-run think tanks including "Americans for Prosperity" and "FreedomWorks"? These groups are not about fiscal responsibility or small government. They are for getting Republicans elected, no matter what. It's just politics, plain and simple. Finally, why do you even call yourselves the "Tea Party"? You are citizens, and you have representation! So there's no need to dump tea in the harbor!

RESPONSE:
Obviously you read different material than do I. But if you can tolerate a conservative article, this one refutes many of the points you made. It also includes criticism of Bush that you wanted to hear.

I can not speak for the Tea Party–actually no one can as it is such an amorphous group sans structure or leadership. However, I hope some tea party member will give your post a shot as it is thoughtful. You also showed respect by your depth and civility.

The reason you do not hear much from this contributor on Bush is that was then and this is now. Bush is yesterday’s news. However, for me, Bush was a big disappointment his second term. Here are some of the ways he let me down. 1. I wish he had turned around and read the sign on the aircraft carrier. The mission was accomplished and he never made the sale for Iraq. 2. Needing Congress to support his war, he let members of both parties loose, spending on steroids. 3. He did not handle the illegals problem when he had the majority. 4. TARP was to avoid a panicky run on the banks. But TARP should have stopped there, along with all the other bailouts. There were less costly and more American ways.

As to feeling the need to dump tea, never since the British, has a leader taken actions that so impacts us, then shuts us out when we object.

58 comments:

Blogger said...

"Never mind the fact that the costs of the health care law are paid for without adding a penny to the national debt."

You can't seriously believe that. An Obama supporter was asked where the money to help her was coming from. She answered, "I don't know. I guess from Obama's stash."

Blogger said...

"Analysis of White house budget data shows that the three presidents who most added to the national debt were all Republicans, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush." WW

According to Wall Street Journal Mr. Obama's $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined.

Blogger said...

"These groups are not about fiscal responsibility or small government. They are for getting Republicans elected, no matter what." WW
WW are you paying attention? The Tea Party is a real headache for the Republican party. If they manage to knock off all the RHINOS (Republicans in name only) during the primaries, then they will push the party to an extreme matching the radical extreme on the left.

Then the election will be all up to the independents. Will they want more European Socialism like Greece or take the country back to its roots?

We won't know until November. What a fun year for us political junkies!

guy faulkes said...

The fool on WW (Matt Robinson) that posted this does not realize that the Tea Party is non-partisan. It is against big government interference proposed by any party.

The problem was the legitimate negative comments about Bush were drowned out by the personal attacks done by the left. They shot themselves in the foot by not sticking to legitimate issues. They caused all complaints to be ignored except by the far left.

Honest Debate said...

Man, dishonest debate bugs me. Many of the writer's premises are just flat silly but they are often repeated.

The main gist seem to be Republicans didn't complain about Bush so why are they complaining about Obama's spending. They did complain about Bush and we lost both houses in 2006 and the Presidency is 2008. The President cannot spend a dime it's the Legislature that makes budgets. Look at the numbers. Obama has already outspent both Bushs and Reagan in his first year. So yeah, people were mad at Bush but Obama has quadrupled down. That turns the anger to outrage.

Even if one makes the incredible leap to say the debt was comparable it's very intellectually weak to excuse bad policy by citing other bad policy. That's no argument.

It's intellectually lazy to conclude that a larger debt means failed Presidential policy. For instance, Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue and created more jobs. Ditto GWB. Obama's policies are bringing less revenue and unemployment went up to 9.9% last week. Jobs, growth, revenue and productivity are the barometers to consider when judging the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Debt is a result of out of control spending by Congress and poorly administrated entitlements.

I don't see how one can compare war debt with entitlement debt. It's my view that Iraq was a war that had to be fought sooner or later. The cost would have been greater later. I don't imagine the writer and I will ever agree on that one. Reagan's debt, in part, defeated Communism, so there's that too.

"And what about the $700 billion bailout of big business by Bush?"

That one is dishonest. Obama adds the entire $700 billion to Bush's debt to say he inherited a $1.3 trillion debt. Bush spent only half, the second half was Obama's. Remember the TARP happened at the very end of Bush's term. Also, 500 billion has been paid back. Obama takes credit for TARP saving the economy while simultaneously blaming Bush for wrecking the economy with TARP's debt! Unbelievable. It's also of note that Obama's first earmark laden "stimulus package" cost $87 billion more than TARP. The "stimulus" package did nothing but add debt. It made things worse. It's not enough to say, "...many economists say it did save our economy from a major depression...". Many more say it didn't although there is still considerable debate as to whether TARP saved the economy.

It's also dishonest debate to cite the numbers from the CBO preliminary report. That does not include the reconciliation package, doc fix and other elements.

"...you are out in the streets because Obama is a Democratic president..."

That one's the kicker. Why on earth would anyone say such an absurd thing? At least the wrier does say it's because he's black. And yes the Constitution does matter and we do adhere to it. Look at the world around us, the model is a failure. Is that irrelevant?

Honest Debate said...

Another problem with using the CBO preliminary report is that it projects only 10 years. The plan was backloaded to the second 10 years. Year 14's a bitch. It defies common sense to think you can add 30 million (not counting the illegals), improve quality and cut cost. Not to mention the human cost of the rationing of life that must happen.

Honest Debate said...

One other thing about TARP, Senator Obama voted for it.

Liberal POV said...

HD

"Another problem with using the CBO preliminary report is that it projects only 10 years. The plan was backloaded to the second 10 years. Year 14's a bitch. It defies common sense to think you can add 30 million (not counting the illegals), improve quality and cut cost. Not to mention the human cost of the rationing of life that must happen."

Would you change the channel and see countries around the world are spending half of what the US does and getting a far better Health Care system.

Don't let facts get in the way of your myths and cult information.

Watauga County Anarchist said...

Today's Yahoo! news headline:

Tea party movement ousts Sen. Bob Bennett in Utah

Call the tea party movement a joke at your own peril!

BikerBard said...

Blogger: You compliment the WW guest blogger, Dr. Matt Robinson, for his civility. Then you pander to a jerk like Faux who calls him a "fool."

So, who is the uncivil one: Matt or Faux? Hmmmmmm?

And "an Obama supporter" gave you that solid evidence about "Obama's stash?" Wow! What investigative reporting! Snicker, snicker.

Blogger said...

WW You indict the Tea Party as "angry and uninformed people who actually believe Obama is a socialist." "And they're generating societal unease based on these absurd beliefs."

My question is what evidence do you have that Obama is not a Hugo Chavez wannabe? Members of Congress such as Congressman Joe Pitts sound alarms:

"We are taking over or nationalizing huge sections of our economy. We have nationalized the banking industry and the financial sector. We have nationalized the home mortgage industry. We have taken over the auto companies. We are well on our way to nationalizing the energy sector with a deeply flawed cap and trade plan," and now large segments of the health care system, and the student loan service.

That is just in a little over one year. WW how do you know you won't wake up one day and discover you had been a quisling?

Blogger said...

BB "And "an Obama supporter" gave you that solid evidence about "Obama's stash?" Wow! What investigative reporting! Snicker, snicker."

It's a metaphor BB--a metaphor. Are you sure you are intellectually up to being on this blog?

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

Quoting Republican Congresspersons is like quoting Beck or Rush. The entire Republican party is insane as the extreme Republicans try to become even more extreme with the tea party mob.

We do have problems in this country but you only work to make them worst.

You have no plan, no Ideas and no leadership.

Honest Debate said...

Blogger,

You forgot the insurance industry (AIG).

guy faulkes said...

The tea Party is going to be very influential in the 2010 elections and there is absolutely nothing the left can do about it except cry. The far left looses ground daily. Is this poetic justice or what?

Honest Debate said...

Watauga County Anarchist's comment should not go unnoticed. Bennett was ousted in large part for his vote in favor of TARP. That's more evidence to refute WW's claim that Republicans weren't angry at their own on spending. They're still angry, ask Bennett.

Blogger said...

Thanks HD for posting on Bennett. It also underscores my comment to WW that he or she is not paying attention when saying the Tea Party is all about getting Republicans elected. No, they are all about getting Conservatives elected. Thanks to the Tea Party, moderate Republicans and so-called Blue Dog Democrats are going down. This next election will be between Socialists and Constitutionalists.

guy faulkes said...

This next election will be between Socialists and Constitutionalists. - Blogger

Thank God!

Blogger said...

BB you wrote Then you pander to a jerk like Faux who calls him a "fool."

Somewhere I missed who Faux is. You will need to tell me where that is as I don't have a clue what you mean.

Liberal POV said...

Tea Party Mob

I'm not happy we have corporate socialism which flourished under the Republicans.

We now have a economy that is dependent on corporate welfare. Letting the banks, AIG, GM and the other too big to fail corporate welfare clients go under would take down the entire world economy which is still in trouble despite bail outs with public money.

We have governments failing and we have riots in the streets as it is. The food stamp program is designed to help Archer Danials Middlan and Kraft Foods far more than the poor and hungry of this country.

World War II was caused by fools like you in Germany electing Hitler in reaction to a world wide depressions with the German economy among the hardest hit.

Real people will suffer much more if you actually get into power. You have NO plans, No Ideas, NO Knowledge and NO leadership.

Liberal POV said...

Tea Party Mob

I remind you that 30 million people died as a result of the world wide depression of the 1930s or that economic crisis and Tea Parties around the world either elected the best or worst of humanity.

I don't see you folks looking for the best of humanity.

Wolf's Head said...

"I remind you that 30 million people died as a result of the world wide depression of the 1930s or that economic crisis and Tea Parties around the world either elected the best or worst of humanity." LPOV

Hundreds of millions were murdered by your socialist comrades, guess you all elected the "worst of humanity' such as Hitler, Hussein, Chavez. And "Tea Parties around the world" is one of your stupider comments.

As for Robinson, the man is an idiot. I don't care if he has a PhD or not, anyone who writes such drivel, and believes it, is an idiot and a fool.

His numbers and conclusions can only be accepted by someone like him who is still suffering from " Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Obama, and the leftists like Robinson and LPOV, have created an economic black hole which will consume all of our wealth, bankrupt the country, destroy the economy and leave millions of Americans without any retirement.

I referred Robinson to an article in a reply I posted on the Watch under "Anonymous", here it is:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obamas-trillions-dwarf-Bushs-dangerous-spending.html

Facts are hard things, and they are going to come up hard against LPOV, Robinson , Onama and their Ideological Comrades.

Blogger said...

POV Just be honest about your corporate welfare. It is the Republicans who are trying to stop "too big to fail." But your Democrats are in the tank with big business and they block every move the Republicans are making to protect us taxpayers from more big bail outs.

Nobody said...

I look at this post, and the letter to the Democrat, in a different way -- to shape the opinions of people who only watch network news and read the older papers (NYT, etc). People who might not pay a lot of attention to the news and don't have access to anything but the lamestream media. Letters like this can really influence how people think about a group they haven't heard a lot about. Libs like POV are scared to death, so they repeat, over and over, that they have no ideas, no leaders, no brains, etc because they are afraid of the ideas and leaders and brains of groups like this. If you can tell people over and over that this is a stupid, dangerous fringe movement and they don't take the time to seek more info, then they will wind up believing it.

Nobody said...

Lib said, "I remind you that 30 million people died as a result of the world wide depression of the 1930s or that economic crisis and Tea Parties around the world either elected the best or worst of humanity."

In college, I took Micro and Macro Economics. The instructor spoke a good deal about the depression. The depression seemed to be ending by the end of 1932. GDP was beginning to edge up. Then, FDR took office and began instituting New Deal programs which wound up extending the Depression -- heavy taxes and/or Keynesian spending to fund welfare programs. The economy actually took a second dip in '37 as bad as '29-31 because after years of spending, the government tried to reduce the deficit by cutting the spending. The economy cannot be based on government spending. Amity Shlaes' book The Forgotten Man is also a thorough description of this time period and FDRs policies. You should check it out.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

Where did the money come from to wage the war during World War II? Was that deficit spending?

from Watauga Watch said...

Good points all. Much appreciated.

But I am feeling like these issues cannot be solved on a blog where people talk past each other. And especially when people are citing stats and repeating quotes from sources like talk radio (Obama's stash and lamestream media). At least Robinson gave his sources on Watauga Watch.

But at least you've given me something to think about and more to research, and that is worth something!

Reader said...

I agree Nobody. I don't go with the "popular flavor of the day". Seems many have and are now wondering if they should have picked another flavor.

guy faulkes said...

Where did the money come from to wage the war during World War II? Was that deficit spending?

Sure. This was a necessity because of a war. Defense of the country is the most legitimate action of government under the Constitution. It was paid for in the long run by the free market and increased production.

Most socialist actions that Liberalproverbs18:2 and BB worship are not legitimate issues for government under the Constitution.

Liberal POV said...

Nobody

"In college, I took Micro and Macro Economics. The instructor spoke a good deal about the depression. The depression seemed to be ending by the end of 1932. GDP was beginning to edge up. Then, FDR took office and began instituting New Deal programs which wound up extending the Depression -- heavy taxes and/or Keynesian spending to fund welfare programs. The economy actually took a second dip in '37 as bad as '29-31 because after years of spending, the government tried to reduce the deficit by cutting the spending."

Did your instructor explain how Roosevelt's vision build the infustructure to win World War II and the great prosprity of the second half of twentieth century? We still use those TVA Dams, The Blue Ridge Parkway, Cove Creek School, Old Boone Post office. Nearly every community in America has Roosevelt era infustructure build as public works or make works projects during that time to keep people from starving to death.

Liberal POV said...

Guy and Nobody

"Sure. This was a necessity because of a war. Defense of the country is the most legitimate action of government under the Constitution. It was paid for in the long run by the free market and increased production."


So the conservative POV is we always have money to wage war even if that war's not necessary as with Viet Nam, Granada, or Iraq but don't have money to invest in infustructure, education, or health care of our citizens?

Nobody said...

"Did your instructor explain how Roosevelt's vision build the infustructure (sic) to win World War II and the great prosprity (sic) of the second half of twentieth century??"

Roosevelt's vision didn't build anything. Most of the goods of war were built or produced by private companies that sold their goods to the government. The things you list as public works projects were built by government funding, yes, but the point is the same point I've tried to make to you before. Government doesn't produce anything. People don't enter enter a "government store" and voluntarily buy a product like you might go into a grocery store and buy food. Government builds stuff, but it does with money that is taken from individuals who work and businesses who employ. We don't have a choice to buy or not buy the things government decides to spend money on. As far as you post, you talk about the infrastructure build by Roosevelt's vision -- the things you then list didn't really contribute to the war, unless you can explain how old Cove Creek school helped the war effort.

guy faulkes said...

If you do not want war being waged, elect leaders that do not fight them. Unfortunately for you, even charlatans like Obama are forced to defend the country. How is he working out for you in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you think he will surrender to Iran?

guy faulkes said...

Nobody, it is useless to try to educate Liberalproverbs18:2. He has been shown over and over the proofs FDR lengthened and worsened the depression. As this goes against his religious beliefs, he ignores the proofs, closes his eyes and mind, puts his fingers in his ears, and starts his La La La chant so as to not be distressed by things such as facts. He does not want to hear about FDR's racist policies, his shutting down private competition to his government programs, etc.

guy faulkes said...

By the way, Liberalproverbs18:2 did you not once say you did not go to college, but went to trade school?

That last post to Nobody was pretty articulate for you to have made. Where did you cut and paste it from? You should give the author credit.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

"It is the Republicans who are trying to stop "too big to fail."

I don't believe it! You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You don't want government regulations to limit the size of executive pay in publicly traded corporations which allow corporate boards to skim the corporate profits before it gets to small share holders or limit corporate mergers, size or political power.

I find it disgusting we had to give all of that taxpayer money to GM and AIG but understand the cost to humanity not doing so.

If GM had gone under the entire midwest would have the feel of Nashville today with he flood damage.

Suppliers to Toyota plants in Kentucky, BMW in South Carolina would have also gone under.

Pensions for GM workers would have ended creating more bankruptcies and Detroits throughout the midwest.

Letting these extremely large corporations go under would have caused the death on tens of millions around the world in civil unrest, war and starvation.

They are to big and need to be broken up and current capitalism needs reform.

guy faulkes said...

So in other words, Liberalproverbs18:2 supports large corporations when told to by his masters but opposes them when those are his marching orders. He does not speak out of both sides of his mouth, he chants his religious mantra on cue.

Liberal POV said...

Guy

Sorry if I don't live in your world of right wing myths and propaganda.

Mine is the world of reality, real facts and real history.

The few rational Republicans remaining also agree the bail outs are saving the world from total economic collapse.

I know how you old men like war and this bailout may have prevented at least one likely many.

Blogger said...

WW One way Republicans protested Bush’s policies was to sit out the last two elections. When they did this, they had much in common with suicide bombers.

guy faulkes said...

Mine is the world of reality, real facts and real history. - Liberalproverbs18:2

Sure, Liberalproverbs18:2, sure it is. We all believe that. That is the reason you run from so many questions.

Blogger said...

WW “But then I am also aware that the Tea Party movement is not a spontaneous grassroots uprising, but instead is a corporate sponsored one.”
WW, do you know any Tea Party members personally? Well, they are many of the best neighbors you have–salt of the earth–the people who settled these mountains–genuine folks who make this country work. I suggest you start hanging out with the locals here and you will soon become aware of how wrong you are. Even better, attend a Tea Party protest. Talk to your neighbors there and get the scales off your eyes. You could even ask them if they are corporate sponsored. And, by the way, they are such good people, they will suffer you with kindness. Come to think about it, until you tell me you have done this, you don’t have any credibility with me on the Tea Party movement.

Liberal POV said...

Blogger


"WW One way Republicans protested Bush’s policies was to sit out the last two elections."

132,618,580 Americans voted in 2008, that's the largest number to ever vote in an American election.

The 56.8% is the largest percentage to vote since 1968.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15306.html

This was no close election Obama won with 365 electorial vote to McCains 173 with democrate winning both House and Senate.
Who told you Republicans set out the election?

Don't you ever get tired of Rush making you look foolish?

Honest Debate said...

WW you wrote: "But I am feeling like these issues cannot be solved on a blog where people talk past each other. And especially when people are citing stats and repeating quotes from sources like talk radio (Obama's stash and lamestream media). At least Robinson gave his sources on Watauga Watch."

I'm not sure what you mean by "talking past each other". Do you mean refusing to acknowledge that conservatives were outraged at Republicans for spending like drunken sailors? Or do you mean discounting other's opinions wholesale if you suspect they ever listened to Rush? BTW, I thought "Obama's stash" was a Sark original, doesn't matter. You can't pin "lamestream media" on any one source. Everybody everywhere calls them all kinds of things nowadays. "Mainstream Media" no longer applies.

Speaking of group think, how about echoing the talking point that the 10 year, pre-reconciliation, preliminary CBO report means squat? How about blissfully ignoring the back loading, double counting and gimmickry Paul Ryan outlined showing how the result was constructed? How about the, "You guys did it so we can do it four times more, four times as fast" argument?

Did you have a problem with the Bush/Obama deficit numbers I linked for you? They were actual Bush numbers as well as CBO and White House projections for Obama. The graph is devastating to look at. Maybe I can find a Media Matters link to actual numbers and projections. Do you consider elections in 2006 and 2008 (the ultimate polls) as evidence of conservative disenfranchisement? They seem like pretty good "sources" to me.

from Watauga Watch said...

Again, thanks for the helpful comments.

To Guy Faulkes, the war in Iraq was NOT necessary for defense. It was a war of choice, long sought by members of the Project for a New American Century that became WH officials when Bush took office (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, etc.). So every dollar added to the debt due to this unnecessary war lies at the feet of Bush, even if Obama continues it (and he is trying to end it).

To Honest Debate, thanks for the link. I checked it out. It is frightening. However, my immediate question is why is Obama running up such a debt? Turns out a ton of it comes from the wars started by Bush. Much of the rest of it comes from less revenue coming in due to Bush tax cuts. So why does he get the blame for it? Makes no sense to me.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

guy faulkes said...

If you contend that the war in Iraq was not necessary, WW, then you are in disagreement with the statements of Clinton, Kerry, and other prominent liberals.

Blogger said...

POV asked “Who told you Republicans set out the election?”According to CNN Politics “Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.”

But that was then and this is now: “The latest weekly Gallup tracking survey shows 43% of GOPers are "very enthusiastic" about voting, while just 33% of Dems feel the same way.”

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

History says the Republicans should recover some of their loses this mid term election cycle but with the help of Tea Party Madness, I don't think you will gain as much as you think.

Nobody said...

From WW - "Much of the rest of it comes from less revenue coming in due to Bush tax cuts. So why does he get the blame for it? Makes no sense to me."

This is false. Between 2003 and 2006, revenues to the federal government increased from $1.783 Trillion to $2.407 trillion. This was after the Bush tax cuts which took effect in 2002. The tax cuts led to measurable increases in government revenues. Deficits grow larger during recessions partly because fewer people are paying taxes (because they're unemployed) and the government is paying out more in unemployment benefits. The tired old argument that the Bush tax cuts are causing the the deficits are simply a lie. Here's the source, if you don't believe me -- it's from the CBO -- the chart is on the last page.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf

Liberal POV said...

Blogger

": “The latest weekly Gallup tracking survey shows 43% of GOPers are "very enthusiastic" about voting, while just 33% of Dems feel the same way.”

Here's the deal if the country continues on the path to recovery as it appears to be headed, Jobs up, Stock market up, Middle East doesn't explode then Democrates will do very well this fall and even better in 2012. Having smart people surounding Obama improves his odds and the Tea Party Mob of know nothings decreases their odds.

If the country loses your political chances are better. What will you hope for?

Honest Debate said...

Nobody,

The same thing happened after Reagan's tax cuts. Ditto Kennedy's.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

Honest Debate said...

WW,

We can discuss what caused Bush's deficits if you want to but it would be better to talk about how to stop Obama from making it look like chump change. Your beef was that Bush did the same thing and we didn't gripe. Well, it's not the same and we griped anyway. That's what the link shows. That's the point.

In the interest of honest debate I'll let you know that the link is old and the actual 2009 deficit numbers came in under both the White House and CBO projections. I forget by how much but it shouldn't be hard to find if you're so inclined. It was still a stark comparison.

Wolf's Head said...

Well Robinson, if you're so concerned about deficit spending, what do you think of this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B53W20100512

While it is slightly better than last year, we are still on track for another trillion dollar deficit for 2010.

And Bush was no where in sight....

Liberal POV said...

Wolf

"And Bush was no where in sight...."

We're still fighting Bush wars and have the Bush Tax cut in place both running up the deficit.

All the destruction you see from the oil spill in the Gulf, closing of school programs, Americans out of work can be laid at the foot of the Republican Party's attention to non issues ( Prayer in schools , flag amendments, gays) and letting criminals take control of government.

Sarkazein said...

I thought you had officially assigned blame for the Gulf oil leak to Haliburton's well-head. Part of your Bush derangement syndrome. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
Congress won't audit Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac.
Hmmmm wonder why. Perhaps because then President Bush and other Republicans warned Congress about them and was only called a racist for his trouble.

The Finacial troubles lie at Barney Franks stiletto high heels.

Liberal POV said...

Sark

"I thought you had officially assigned blame for the Gulf oil leak to Haliburton's well-head."

Haliburton is who BP and Drilling Company say is responsible, It was the concrete around the well head that failed and rhe regulations or lack of Regulation were writen during the Bush Admin when Vice President Cheney was in office former CEO of Haliburton. Haliburton installed the well head.

Sarkazein said...

Read today's news. And by the way, it is still undecided what failed. YOU are stating it as fact, it is not.

Wolfs Head said...

Well Robinson, if you're so concerned about deficit spending, what do you think of this?

While it is slightly better than last year, we are still on track for another trillion dollar deficit for 2010.

And Bush was no where in sight...

Blogger said...

POV You apparently believe the CIA was behind the execution of Che. Actually it was not the CIA but the campesinos, the ones he came to deliver. They reported him to the army telling them he was disturbing their sheep.