The American Spectator : The Rout of Obamanomics

Text Size

The Rout of Obamanomics

By Peter Ferrara on 7.7.10 @ 6:08AM

The situation is worse than even harsh critics expected.

(Page 3 of 3)

The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined. That is official IRS data, as accurately reported by the Tax Foundation. Look it up. But Hillary Clinton continues to mindlessly repeat the brain dead, neo-Marxist, Democrat party mantra that "the rich are not paying their fair share." What would a fair share look like?

The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere

In a recent appearance filling in for Rush Limbaugh, Herman Cain said in this hour of crisis many Americans have appropriately turned for inspiration to the Founding Fathers. But what he was wondering was, where are the "Defending Fathers"? By that he meant where are those who will step forward today to challenge politically the neo-Marxist takeover of America, and the ultimate decline and fall of our country, that Barack Obama is leading.

The message we need to hear today was written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow on April 19, 1860, in "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." Longfellow wrote of that night, "On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five":

And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with it's heat….

"So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

This is July already, and if you are not already deeply involved in a campaign for the candidate of your choice, then you are not getting the message. If the Democrats lose 25 house seats this fall, no one will be scared. Even if they lose 40, and the Republicans gain control of the House, no one in Washington will really be shaken.

But if the Democrats lose 60 seats, all bets are off. For then, growing numbers of surviving Democrats will begin to vote with the right, even to override Obama vetoes. But that is not going to happen, unless Americans appalled at what's happened to their country get out, and get their friends, relatives and neighbors to get out, now, to make it happen.

Otherwise, they will be like the farmer who heard Paul Revere crying out that night, "The British are coming," and turned over and went back to sleep because he had to put the corn in the next morning.

Page: < 1 23

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (267) | Leave a comment

Tim*| 7.7.10 @ 6:14AM

Obama is an economic Gravedigger.

Stop him before he Keynes' Us again .

The tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

Defang The Keynesians on November 2nd.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 7:58AM

Bush, while driving along a mountainous road makes a wrong turn, crashes through a fence, then over a cliff, and partway to the bottom, the “decider,” decides to bail.
Question: is it his passengers’ fault that the car continues plummeting downward?

Deborah D| 7.7.10 @ 8:09AM

Bush screwed up, but Obama is tripling down on that (never let a good crisis go to waste). Obama is killing the economy and the country and blaming Bush all the way down that mountain. Get over it. This is Obama's economy now.

AMENBROS| 7.7.10 @ 9:10AM

Its gonna take at least a decade to flush this bovine alimentary canal byproduct out of our economy. You merely need the basic rudiments of Macroeconomic education to grasp just how deeply the average JOE & JANEs in America is SCREWED BLUE & TATOOEd with no real relief in site.
I recommend voting for anyone but the pukes we have continued to return year after year.

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 10:09AM

I have to admit that I find the incessant bashing of George W. Bush on Conservative websites to be tiresome.

Was he "THE PERFECT" Conservative? NO!!!! Far from it. But he was also a far-cry from the pseudo-conservatives like McCain and Graham.

W. did a lot of GREAT things for this country.

He cut taxes upon taking office, much to the chagrin of the Democrats (and to McCain, who brokered a "deal" to NOT make W's tax-cuts permanent...And come January, we'll see how stupid McCain was...

W. was a great friend to the unborn, cutting funds that support abortion overseas, and stopping (as much as possible) partial-birth abortion at home.

His leadership after 9/11 was, in my opinion, flawless. He surrounded himself with capable men, and let them do what needed to be done. If course corrections needed to be made, W. made them in order to further the mission.

If anyone thought Iraq was a simple affair, they were kidding themselves. Yet here we are, 6 years later, with a stable, democratic Iraq, and Saddam Hussein pushing-up daisies. Has anyone noticed that the Democrats don't whine about Iraq anymore? That's because they don't want to talk about it, unless they can transfer the success to Obama.

Afghanistan, while never stable, has deteriorated drastically under Obama. But the fact remains that W. and his advisors crafted a plan that routed the Taliban, and killed thousands of Al-Qaeda in the process.

W. also gave us two outstanding Supreme Court Justices in John Roberts and Sam Alito that are an effective shield to Obama and the statists.

And let's not forget that until the Democrats took control of Congress in '06, the economy, even post-9/11, post-dotcom bubble, was VERY strong. Unemployment was 5%, meaning basically that we had full-employment. The economy started to slide in '08, and we all know the rest.

W. allowed himself to be pulled in the direction of the Keynsians because he sincerely believed that it was the right thing to do at the right time.

Would I have done it? No. But I think it gets to the heart of what made W. effective and, at time, ineffective.

George W. Bush is a very confident man, but he is probably the least egotistical man to have served in the White House since perhaps Calvin Coolidge. This is good because it allowed him to take criticism positively and listen to the advice of others, and bad because it allowed him to take criticism positively and listen to the advice of others. Unfortunately at the end he wasn't getting good advice.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but as I said, I get tired of the Bush-bashing sometimes. As the posters and billboards popping-up all over the country attest to, I definitely miss Bush...And hopefully, others do, too.

CCPony| 7.7.10 @ 10:20AM

Thank you. Well stated.

Deborah D| 7.7.10 @ 10:33AM

I'm with you Doctor Right. I wasn't bashing Bush, I was agreeing that he screwed up on the economy at the end of his term. I do miss President Bush -- who loved his country and the American people, and wasn't afraid to show it. Obama hates the country and the American people -- only masochists could think otherwise!

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 11:39AM

Jesus Chirst, what are you about 10 years old!

carnot| 7.7.10 @ 1:43PM

why do you ask? are you a pedofile?

Deborah D| 7.7.10 @ 1:46PM

Why? Because Obama hates the country? You are a masochist, aren't you?

You're the juvenile -- I suppose you learned that from Obama. You keep blaming Bush, just like "The One. "

ds80| 7.7.10 @ 5:11PM

Oooooh! What an infantile potty-mouth you have, vtwin.
Loser.

ojo grande| 7.7.10 @ 9:19PM

No...vtwin, these people are not 10 years old! or ignorant, stupid or profane...like you.
What are you doing on this blog anyway...you liberal idiot!

Chris M| 7.8.10 @ 1:46PM

Obama hates the country? He hates the people? This is such utter foolishness, I can't believe I'm even responding. Typical "Conservative" and "Tea Bagger" ignorant ranting. Turning the tight ecomony around quickly is like turning a freight liner in a tight circle - it can't be done. Give it some time for crying out loud!

P.S. What happened when your idol, Reagan, raised taxes in the mid 80's? The economy soared!! Christ, you people are dumb!!

Deborah D| 7.9.10 @ 1:17AM

Yes, Obama hates the country. Latest evidence -- suing Arizona for trying to protect its people. If Obama gave a rat's patootie about Arizonans (aka Americans) -- he would be down on that border, building the damn fence and helping Arizona with their dangerous Mexican invaders.

You're the ignorant one. Obama is doing everything on the economy the exact opposite of what history has shown actually works. He's either ignorant, a progressive ideologue or wants to tear the country down. None of those prospects is good, but one of them (or all of them) are true.

Eugene| 7.12.10 @ 10:47AM

Deborah.....You are correct.....great post!

Forever Marine| 7.7.10 @ 10:44AM

Yup, well stated. Thank you.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.7.10 @ 11:18AM

Doctor right,

Extremely well written comment...and reminder to all of us. Thank you.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 11:02AM

Bush’s eight years in office, “every component of the U.S. economy has deteriorated,” budget deficits UP, trade deficits UP, unemployment UP, inflation UP, Consumer debt UP, poverty rate UP, and household savings are DOWN.

“Nearly 4 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared and, not coincidentally, 5 million more Americans have no health insurance.”

And, “nearly one fifth of American homeowners … owe more in mortgage debt than their homes are actually worth.”

In addition to the 4,500 dead Americans “the price for the war in Iraq is expected to reach at least $3 trillion.”

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/01/0082337

Really| 7.7.10 @ 11:09AM

Ok... so let's break this down...

The US economy started to slide during Bush's time in office and entered into what could be considered a recession around 2000 after the dotcom bubble burst. Bad policy making during the Clinton/Dem controlled house pushed freddie/fannie to make poor loan decisions to HIGH risk individuals becase "everyone has a right to own a home". The fruits of their actions just happened to occur during a republican president's term. Your point is?

You also have a current president who is keeping U.S. forces overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I find it hard to fault the Bush admin when the current administration has continued the war efforts abroad WHILE raiding two or three generations of their wealth.

Chris M| 7.8.10 @ 1:49PM

Are Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress to blame for not "fixing" whatever Agency is responsible for the lax standards behind the BP debacle? If so, then Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress are just as responsible for not "fixing" Fannie/Freddie. You can't have it both ways - any reasonable person understands that.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.7.10 @ 11:21AM

Folks, regarding vtwin: "You just can't fix stupid".
heh.

ojo grande| 7.7.10 @ 9:25PM

Ken,
No we can't fixt stupid...but I have lost all patience with these liberal idiots that are ruining my life, my childrens, grandchildren's lives.

If we can't stop Obama and the idiots that voted this Commie into office this next election...we will end up having a revolution...then, we'll see if vtwin will come from out under his bed...

Chris M| 7.8.10 @ 1:51PM

Folks, regarding Ken (Old Texican): Guess he proves that. Heh heh

GBArg| 7.7.10 @ 12:21PM

vitwin, your lying modern Liberal spew is so old . . . you can recognize a mod Lib by his inability to learn from reality. No doubt that's what the Liar-In-Chief currently inhabiting the White House counts on.

Chris M| 7.8.10 @ 1:52PM

GBArg - what exactly has Obama lied about? Or are you just regurgitating the typical Conservative spew?

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 1:16PM

What, are you 10 years old?!?!

You repeat every cliche' about Bush that you've ever heard, like a child who listens to grown-ups talk politics.

Do yourself a favor, and start listening to real grown-ups, sonny...

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 1:50PM

"Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents"

http://politics.usnews.com/new.....dents.html

Maybe you should do some reading, grampa!

Laser| 7.7.10 @ 2:01PM

vtwin: Your headline needs an edit. "LIBERAL Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents." It is already clear, your boy in the Oval Office is, hands down, the worst POTUS ever. Lacking in character, vision, courage. Empty suit. The worst. Congratulations.

Deborah D| 7.7.10 @ 2:01PM

Historians? You mean the lefties on college campuses? What a surprise. You must still be in college yourself to believe their hype. I'll bet 100% of them voted for Obama too.

eddieb| 7.7.10 @ 5:16PM

The worst was Jimmy Carter! That was then. The worst is B Husain Obummer. My great grand kids will be paying for this mess, assuming that the Dems loose really bad in November and the Republicans can repeal and overide the Idiot in Chief's veto. For what it is worth Bush wasn't to blame for Fanny and Freddy, Barney Fag and Chris Dud and their party were. Fanny and freddy started this and tax and spend are compounding it.
Yeah W. he sucessfully took the fight to the enemy! Under Obummers watch 46 Afgans have gone AWAL from Lackland AFB How many of them are terrorists?

Oh Vtwin anyone worth listining to has a little respect for their elders. Your when you made the grandpa crack it was yours you were showing. You really should wipe

GregA| 7.8.10 @ 2:28PM

And in what direction do history professors tend to lean? And which 20th Century president ranks the highest (third only to the default Lincoln and Washington)? The left's favorite: FDR. That GWB is considered a "poor" president by left-leaning eggheads should be considered a badge of honor.

JmsA| 7.8.10 @ 12:27AM

vtwin,

A Siena poll of historians ranks the One as our 15the best president. It should be pointed out, however, that Warren Harding was ranked third worst in the same poll. What's the difference? Warren Harding was non-statist Republican, who per the recommendation of Andrew Mellon, adhered to non-interventionism as the best policy as the economy entered a sharp postwar recession, as his administration was ultimately hailed for peace, tax and spending reductions, and the restoration of civil liberties, which had been under assault by Woodrow Wilson. Yet, despite the One’s obstinate adherence to obviously failing statist economic policies, as well as flouting of the law, failing miserably to abate the ecological/economic disaster in the gulf, and engaging in crass politics, he gets pretty high marks from the scholars. This just goes to show the inanity of some many of our so-called present day historians.

By the way, vitwin, do you remember this?:

What do Social Security and Medicare trust funds ACCOUNTING STATEMENTS have to do with statistics? Fyi, polls are statistics."

Since you're oblivious to the obvious, I'll answer that question for you:

First, you need to visit this government site you posted: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Then focus on the very top of the page where you'll see the words "Actuarial Publications". For your information, without statistics there's no actuarial analysis. Although you posited the information contained in such sites were accounting statements, they're not such. Those posted figures are just projections and the furthest thing from an actual accounting ledger. Why do think the House of Representatives hasn't passed a budget? So put away the condescension and ignorance, I have forgotten more about statistics that you'll ever know.

Let me know if any further help.

Grzmlyk| 7.8.10 @ 1:13PM

Wait a second: budget deficits up, trade deficits up, unemployment up, inflation up, consumer dept up, poverty rate up household savings down, manufacturing jobs disappearing, American homeowners under water, needless deaths in a war in the middle east?

Gotcha. These numbers are bad under Bush. But triple them and they make Obama a GREAT president!!!

So, vtwin, when you were a child, did you want to grow up to become a tool in tyranny's propaganda machine?

Watch folks - like all the other trolls that have come and gone here, once the Obama Way bites vtwin in the ass, suddenly he'll stop showing up here to throw rocks.

Then again maybe he's as stupid as he sounds.

The capacity of the brain-dead liberal to reject logic never ceases to amaze me.

Chris M| 7.8.10 @ 1:57PM

I keep hearing terms like "tyranny", "Socialist", "Communist". Where the fuck do you people live? If the government hadn't saved GM, Chrysler, and the banks, hundreds of thousands more people would be out of jobs! You keep complaining about high unemployment, but then get your panties in a bind over the government saving jobs. Oh, and what other companies or industries has the government taken over? Hmmmm? In a Socialist/Communist country, the government owns EVERYTHING? Where is this happening n this country?

Jorge| 7.8.10 @ 10:08PM

You indeed are a useful idiot. Go back to school and learn what that means.

Deborah D| 7.9.10 @ 1:24AM

Geez, this guy is a clueless Obamabot, isn't he? When he wakes up one day with Obama's boot on his neck perhaps he'll finally get it.

Convet| 7.9.10 @ 6:03PM

Stupid is as stupid does MORON.

Convet| 7.9.10 @ 6:02PM

Ate any good books lately?

Wally| 7.7.10 @ 11:24AM

No one complains about Iraq because everyone on the planet, except insane people like Dick Cheney agree it is was and will be the most disastrous foreign policy action in the history of the U.S. Strengthening of Iran. Over a $trillion of our taxpayer dollars spent.25,000 Americans seriously wounded or killled. 400,000 Iraqis KILLED. 2 fu_cking million refugees STILL living outside Iraq.

All this on a lie about WMD. Are you that stupid that you think that this makes George Bush look good?

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 12:04PM

Which lie about WMD? The one Clinton believed? Maybe the one British MI6 believed. Perhaps the one contained in the CIA report? The one Al Gore trumpeted? Maybe the National Intelligence Assessment? Or, maybe it was Saddam Hussein's military commanders that were waiting for the chemical and gas to deter the allied forces? Or, could it be Hussein's continued resistence to UN inspections which might have proven his denials which no one believed at the time?
By the way, the 400,000 number of Iraqis killed has been repudiated by the Iraqi government. And, although they believe it was closer to 50,000 that's still a high price to pay. However, Saddam's gone and they may have saved a few more lives because of it.

GBArg| 7.7.10 @ 12:24PM

Wally, you forgot to rant about Vietnam. Oh, that's right - Kerry the gigolo pretty covered that ModLib lie. On to more fairy tales, Wally-boo!

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 1:19PM

Another clueless, Lib-moron spews talking points that he barely understands.

eddieb| 7.7.10 @ 5:28PM

Hey Waldo,
Your numbers aren't accurate, they are inflated they make you look stupid. The Bush lied thing is moronic. It shows you pay attention to other morons like Michael Moron. I suppose you also think that George W Bush planted explosives and flew the Airplanes with a remote control while his clone was in the classroom reading to children. The intel was flawed, everyone thought Iraq had them. Saddam himself said that he created intel to freighten his enemies.

JmsA| 7.8.10 @ 12:40AM

Wally, did you forget about the Osirak nuclear reactor, the Anfal campaign and gassing of the Kurds, the Iraq/Iran war, the invasion of Kuwait, and the 300,000 plus Iraqis murdered by Sadam? Come on, put aside your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and smell the coffee.

vtwin| 7.8.10 @ 1:49PM

The legacy of Bush presidencies: “American Conservatives” arguing in favor of squandering American lives and American treasure. To defend America? To defend American interest? No! No! To avenge the murder of Muslims by other Muslims in the Middle East.

Grzmlyk| 7.8.10 @ 1:34PM

"No one complains about Iraq because everyone on the planet, except insane people like Dick Cheney (sic) agree it is (sic) was (sic) and will be the most disastrous foreign policy action in the history of the US."

So people don't complain about things they know are disastrous? Gee, that runs exactly counter to my experience in life. I guess you kept your mouth shut during Katrina, huh? And I'm sure you had nothing to say about 9/11, right?

I KNOW you're keeping your mouth shut about Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill. And his systematic dismantling of business in this country. And his plan to create utopia by telling every citizen what they can and can't do, what they can and can't eat, what they can and can't drive, where they can and can't work, how they can and can't live, what they can and can't spend the money he's allowing them on.

I understand, Wally: Malicious destruction in the name of liberalism is GOOD, right?

But why let reality intrude, Wally? Don't want to let things like facts pop that bubble.

Welcome, friends, to Wally World, open 24 hours a day except at diaper-changing time.

Yes, Dick Cheney is insane and Wally here, well, he's got it all figured out because the liberal echo chamber has told him so. He reads the Huffington Post! He reads the Daily Kos! Or maybe mommy reads it to him.

Wally, you are less than a speck of fly manure on a bathroom wall when compared to the capabilities, intelligence, patriotism, courage and beneficence of Dick Cheney.

I must say what amazes me about toddlers who aren't potty trained is their inability to experience shame and their penchant for make-believe. They still peddle the "lie about WMD" despite the well-documented facts that lay that canard to rest. Liberals don't care how ridiculous their lies are - as long as enough lefties repeat them, and the media echoes them, you can make reality whatever you want (which was Hitler's strategy, by the way), right Wally?

Well, liberalism is a religion, after all, and religions are based on faith, not empirical evidence.

Hey Wally: Why don't you play the flipside of "Bush Lied, People Died?" You know, that great one titled, "The Plame Game!" That's always good for a few laughs.

Convet| 7.9.10 @ 6:04PM

Another useless Soros puppet!

K Carr| 7.7.10 @ 12:00PM

Dr. Right - BRAVO!!!

Deb| 7.7.10 @ 12:29PM

Right on, Doc.

Maggie| 7.7.10 @ 12:51PM

Amen, Doctor Right

Jack| 7.7.10 @ 1:20PM

Well said Doctor!! The problem with the Libtards is they are starting to believe all the history they've been trying to re-write. Vtwin and his ilk can only bash the previous president because Obama is such a failure.. Maybe the worst part of Obama is the complete lack of class, even Clinton stopped trying to blame others after a year in office. Either you're the president or your not but don't blame others if you fail on your watch. LMAO

Johnny Mo| 7.7.10 @ 2:46PM

Excellent. I agree.

I like Bush. Wish he would not have bailed out everybody.

Greg| 7.7.10 @ 2:53PM

Very well put.

David| 7.7.10 @ 3:33PM

Wow. Way to go Doctor Right. You should save that post as it was the most articulate and well reasoned defense of President Bush I have ever read. If only W had you writing his remarks perhaps his historical status would be better.

xcon| 7.7.10 @ 8:32PM

Good Job Doctor!!!

centrist| 7.8.10 @ 2:01AM

Please dont vote ever again in your life.You just dont get it. However ignorance is bliss. Your allegiance to your party blinds you.You only want the current president to fail because he is a democrat.Bush was one of the worst presidents in american history end of story.

rtk| 7.8.10 @ 3:46PM

Agree that Bush was a mediocre president. His worst quality was acting like a moderate republican which is just as bad as a democrat.

Lloyd.Dobbs| 7.10.10 @ 8:27AM

Personally, I was very disappointed in President G.W. Bush. He allowed the events of 9/11 as has been shown. He ushered in the "Patriot Act" which required 9/11 in order to be passed, UNREAD 9as are most all Bills, now adays). He
could have STOPPED abortion immediately with an Excutive Order but did not. He had no respect for Laws passed by Congress and had the unmitigated gall to write which parts he would not
follow on the Bills as he signed them. He TRASHED our Constitution, but then, after all, he has a reading disability and a substance abuse problem with permanent brain damage, so we should cut him some slack? No, Sir. We Amerians are getting exactly what we deserve; Bush made it possible for a COMMUNIST, NON-QUALIFIED by the Constitution, ISLAMIST to be Elected after him. Sorry, while I forgive him in spirit, "Res ipsa loqiture". Think about it. Clinton was so bad morally, Bush could be elected.
Bush was so inept ANY DEMOCRAT could be elected; and we now have a man trying to give us
his "Fundamental Change" from a Democratic Republic to a completely DESTROYED Nation in order to remake America into a Communistic
Dictatorship, in my opinion.

RickBurgoon| 7.7.10 @ 11:28AM

In the face of unemployment now 100% higher than under President Bush, foreclosures through the roof, the stock market at pathetic lows and the purse strings held by Dems for FOUR years (the last 2 of Bush's term when spending really went nuts) HOW do you blame Bush? You revisionists seem to forget...Bush inherited the process of 9/11 and NEVER complained, and face it -- MOST Presidents would have been unable to steer the country back on track after the economic, social and gut-wrenching devestation of 9/11. Obama would have 100% cast balem on Clinton for not doing enough to connect the dots...adn he would have wallowed in self pity. Bush took control and got the country back on track rapidly, and history will judge him in that context. Obama inherited a paper cut compared to what Bush had to deal with. Its 1980 all over again -- are you better off today than you were 2 years ago? For the vast majority of Americans who arent caught up in bumper sticker slogans and waiting for Hope to Change reality, the answer is NO. There were only "failed" Bush policies until we had data to compare those polices with -- and that data is Obama's "plan" for recovery. The man never even operated a lemonade stand as akid -- all he knows about economics he learned in dorm rooms, community meeting halls and coffee-klatch b*tch sessions. He was amarginal lawyer at best, a shrill member of a failed state assembly and used his Senate seat to vote present, sell his two books and run for President. That is his career. I.e, nothing. The man is a failure, accept it and move on. His only virtue now is that he has shown America the danger of falling for an ideologue so rigid in his views that he really does not care about the common people. Credit Clinto for at least having the guts to see reality after his first mid-term and move the the right...Obama would rather see the country burn than admit he has been wrong. History will show that our little experiment with giving inexperience and academic-intellect and mindless-passion a chance in a modern world was a failure, and that will be the Obama legacy. Its time to cut the dreamy swan singing and accept that we need adults in DC, not the Obama, Pelosi, Reid re-treads, but real people with real world experiences, people who made payrolls and understand economics as it works on Main Street, not how its taught by tweed-jacketed thinkers.

Jeff Lee| 7.7.10 @ 11:27AM

Zippy the Pinhead can't drive a car.

RDN in Houston| 7.7.10 @ 12:20PM

You are kidding. Spending for 2001, Bush's first year in office, was $2.3 trillion and we actually had a $160 billion surplus. Spending for 2008, Bush's last year in office had risen to $3.0 trillion while the deficit had risen to $467 billion. During Zero's second year in office, spending has soared to $3.6 trillion and the deficit is $1.5 trillion or more than three times the level of 2008.

Spending from 2006 through 2008 was determined by the Dem controlled house and Senate. Before you send such blather, do a little homework.

You can't make this stuff up...Zero and his leftist cronies are either incompetent or are trying to destroy the economy.

Michael Pratt| 7.7.10 @ 12:38PM

Bush, while driving along a mountainous road, makes a wrong turn, crashes through a fence THEN bails (he didn't decide to bail he was constitutionally forced out of the car). Obama, ran for office saying we were crashing and he knew how to steer us back onto the road. He won, then got into the car and slammed his foot down on the accelerator as hard as he could and drove straigth off the cliff.

That is a) Obama's fault for being a fool and b) the voters' fault for trusting the guy with absolutely no leadership experience at anything other than self promotion.

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 1:33AM

This is so good it made me laugh out loud. When Obama was running for president I could not understand why anyone would vote for someone with such little experience to run our country with a Socialist agenda!! As Hitler stated if you state a lie long enough and loud enough just about everyone will believe it. That is what has happened to our beloved country.

altag| 7.7.10 @ 5:22PM

why even read and comment about articles on a conservative web site when all you proffer are the same old, knee jerk reactions or the moronic left.
If you had read any of the article with an open mind, you'd be hard pressed to argue. So, as usual, a diversity loving communist, reacts with with hatred toward the ONE man who was principled enough to fight back on terrorism and keep us safe for 7.5 years after. You really need to see a doctor.

SamAdams25| 7.7.10 @ 11:00PM

Blame Bush! Blame Bush!

That ain't flying anymore. Obama has more than quadrupled Bush's deficit in less than one year, and used it to prop up his corrupt union buddies in order to keep their support.

Bush may have put us in a ditch (with Dem controlled congress' help), but it is Obama, Pelosi, and Reid who have us heading straight for the cliff with the pedal to the metal.

Obama and the "progressives" will be the ruination of our country, unless we take away his congressional power this November!

Joe| 7.8.10 @ 7:01AM

you are a nitwit

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 1:38AM

Such and intelligent response! NOT!

rtk| 7.8.10 @ 3:43PM

Bush spent money foolishly at times but Obama has taken us to a 14 trillion dollar debt. No excuses! Noone has even come close to this debacle. It was a liberal congress and liberal president who ignored the American people, not Bush!!!!!

LGA| 7.8.10 @ 4:22PM

Bush did not cause this. The Dems took control of the House and the Senate in 2006. They passed their usual slew of massive spending bills; Bush should have vetoed.
Plus, Dodd and B. Frank, through Fannie and Freddie, insisted banks lend to people who had no money and often did not have jobs; otherwise, the Dems would charge the banks with "relining". So the banks did the Dem nonsense, resulting in the housing meltdown.
Obama was not a passenger. He was one of the saboteurs that grabbed the wheel and forced it off the road!

Albert| 7.8.10 @ 6:24PM

This is easily the stupidest and most inaccurate analogy I have ever heard. Go take a class in basic economics.

RWinks| 7.9.10 @ 12:30AM

Let's see, the labor force declined by more than 1 million in May and June. Are we sure about that? A few million graduates should have entered the labor force in June. Maybe they took the Summer off and are waiting to start looking for work.

On the other hand maybe the numbers coming out of BHO's Labor Dept. aren't worth a dam-. Whatever the true figures are, the Obamacrats are continuing their gang rape of the US economy.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 10:40AM

If "Reaganomics" is such a “successful” economic philosophy why do we have to borrow money from the socialists in Europe, and the Communists in Asian to finance our national debt?

Faffnir| 7.7.10 @ 11:06AM

Because Congress reneged on the spending cuts that were supposed to be part of the package. Because Congress has rigged the budget rules so that no program can ever be un-funded or terminated. Because Congress consistently spends far more than the Treasury takes in. Because Congress has confiscated what should have been a surplus in Social Security taxes, spent it and then borrowed more on the IOU's it issued for the cash. Because Congress is dominated by self-serving egomaniacs who like spending money the treasury does not have, never will have, and they have no idea how to obtain except by strangling the economy with ever-higher taxes, fees and regulations.
See Sowell "Basic Economics" and Friedman "Capitalism and Freedom".

JoeJazz2000| 7.7.10 @ 12:47PM

Faffnir, don't bother responding to vtwin. He is a troll. he's here to disrupt. He is also a fool, and he is a liar.

Grzmlyk| 7.8.10 @ 2:02PM

Faffnir, Great response.

Vtwin is like a walking "greatest hits" amalgamation of liberal idiocy.

Soon enough, he'll experience the iron fist that lurks behind the velvet glove of liberalism; The corrosive nihilism that is at the heart of our piece of shit in chief's Marxism will touch every American - even those like vtwin, who live off the government teat.

Byron Sanders| 7.7.10 @ 1:10PM

Because Obama abandoned Reagonomics and threw in with Pelosi and Reid. The government can't create prosperity, it can only impede the natural ebb and flow of economic activity. This country's economic strength has been the willingness of entrepreneurs to take a risk on an idea with the potential reward of profit. Obama thinks that equation is false. His version is that government takes in an "appropriate" amount of money via taxation and then decides how to feed that money into the economy to foster the social engineering and worthwhile projects that it favors. If the Democrats aren't stopped, the US economy is doomed to 9-10% unemployment, low growth and limited opportunity. Cut the spending and cut the taxes then stand back and get out of the way.

SocialistsNeverProsper| 7.7.10 @ 1:21PM

Why don't you ask Your Hero the Marxist Zero about that? He's the pro: The callow poseur and his Democrat Regressive Socialist enablers in Congress are piling up debt more than three times faster than any deficit of the Shrub era. It's also magnitudes beyond anything that happened during the Reagan era.

Regressives whose homes reek with filth have no business heaping scorn on those whose houses have a little scuffed paint.

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 1:29PM

Because, dummy, we haven't been engaged in Reaganomics since Bush '41 broke his "No new taxes" pledge in 1990!

We're borrowing money left and right because of the unsound fiscal policies of the Democrats.

If this country was truly run with "Reaganomics", we'd be slashing personal and corporate income taxes, and cutting needless regulation to create wealth, prosperity, and jobs.

Are we doing that?!?!?

Have we done that lately?!?!?

NO. Obama has done EXACTLY the opposite...And the affect will be EXACTLY the opposite.

We have history as a precedent. NO nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Now pull your head out of your ass and learn how the world really works as opposed to what your idiot, left-wing teachers and professors told you.

Dummy...

eddieb| 7.7.10 @ 5:33PM

Because Dems abandoned it.

SamAdams25| 7.7.10 @ 11:07PM

It's simple, vtwin. The Dems' insatiable addiction to growing government, spending to reward political allies like corrupt unions, and moving as hard as they can go towards a global socialist NWO is the answer to your question. The bad news is that it is the plan of the "progressives".

centrist| 7.8.10 @ 2:12AM

old dogma unions arent that powerful and have nothing to do with the recession at all. This is a free trade globalization recession. if anericans dont change there energy jobs those jobs will never come back. The govrrnment is the invisible hand in capitalism. Republicans are going to get into office and send us to more inequality and no socail safety net then the depression will be here

donald hutchin| 7.7.10 @ 6:30AM

Wasn't the federal reserve suppose to stop these recessions?

Old Soldier| 7.7.10 @ 12:58PM

The Federal Reserve only controls monetary policy. Congress controls fiscal policy and they are completely out of control right now.

Carol| 7.7.10 @ 7:09AM

Great, depressing article, Peter.

Until people get on board with the idea that Obama is destroying the U.S. on purpose - not because he is an inept idiot (well, nevermind) - you will never convince the people.

How could your average idiot on the street believe a POTUS would want to destroy the country?

The Republicans have so much ammo to use against the first Commie POTUS and should start playing dirty like Obama - but they are too worried about looking like bullies. And all the while Obama blames them for his destruction of what was once the greatest country on earth.

Hey Mitch McConnell, you out there? WE WANT OBAMACARE REPEALED AND YOU BETTER GET ON BOARD!

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 8:58AM

Since the adoption of “Reaganomics” in the early 80s the privately held wealth of Americans held by top 1% of households has steadily increase from 20.5% in 1979 to 34.6% 2007. A 14.1% increase in the concentration of wealth held by the wealthiest Americans.

And, the national debt has increase from less that $1 Trillion in 1979 to over $13 Trillion in 2010.

Measured from either the economic condition of the average working class American to the overall fiscal condition of our county “Reaganomics” has been a complete failure.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/.....stdebt.htm

INTJ| 7.7.10 @ 9:17AM

You are measuring "success" by the percentage of wealth held, rather than the relative improvement (as any good Socialist would), and "failure" by a national debt fueled at least in part by Democrat congresses along the way, and including Obama's record bender, which borrowed in one year what Bush did in his first four. The truth is that the portion of wealth held by average Americans is worth more than it was before Reagan, regardless whether the percentage is smaller, which is what really matters. I don't care if my piece of the pie is smaller than Bill Gates', as long as the pie itself, and my piece along with it, keeps getting bigger.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 10:18AM

“Obama's record bender, which borrowed in one year what Bush did in his first four.” Really?

On Jan. 7, 2009, TWO WEEKS BEFORE Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x.....earing.pdf

Really?| 7.7.10 @ 10:48AM

... How much of that deficit is from the $787B bail-out that was pushed at the instanance of the current president AND the democrat controlled congress or the country would "collapse?

Again - selective story telling does no one especially yourself any favors.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 11:23AM

“Bailouts” for the wealthy on Wall Street, “sh*t” for the unemployed on Main Street.

“Reaganomics " is alive and well!

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 1:41PM

NICE SLOGAN!

Which one of your stupid professors gave it to you??

carnot| 7.7.10 @ 1:49PM

you know...the Bush bailouts were paid back. O's stimulus slush fund? not so.

BetteS| 7.7.10 @ 4:25PM

In 1981 Pres. Reagan said no to a Wall St. bailout. Pres. Clinton bailed out Citigroup and Goldman Sachs in 1995, 1997, & 1998.
In 2008 Pres. Bush bailed out Wall St.
As for Main St.; Congress has extended unemployement benefits over and over again.
"Reaganomics" has been dead for almost two decades.
I'm amazed that anyone would try to blame this recession on "Reaganomics".

RacerJim| 7.7.10 @ 12:29PM

$700B of that PROJECTED 2009 $1.2T deficit was TARP allocated funding pushed on Bush at the insistance of Obama AND the super-majority Democratic Congress on the premise that such was necessary to forestall a total collapse of our financial system. Note that while Obama has demonized Bush for leaving him a $1.2T deficit (not only a PROJECTED deficit but also over half of which was $700B TARP funding) out of one side of his mouth, he has lauded TARP for saving our financial system from total collapse out of the other side of his mouth.

Obamabots can't stand the truth.

Michael Pratt| 7.7.10 @ 12:42PM

The entire TARP bailout is included in that number. It was LOANS made to banks which have been repaid. That 700+ Billion was not deficit spending.

(Of course it is being turned into deficit spending by Obama who keeps using the funds paid back for whatever latest scheme he's come up with.)

Isn't it nice to see...| 7.7.10 @ 1:26PM

.... your stimulus finds at work? Obviously, Axelturf the Marxist Mastermind pays this chump to grind out the same old, same old neo-Communist bullshit every day. The real tragedy here, of course, is that your great-great grandchildren will still be paying for all this Regressive selfishness a century from now!

86general| 7.7.10 @ 9:56AM

Statistical categories like the "top 1% of households" are not composed of static, fixed groups of people. People move between classes. The majority of people in the top 1% climb there from lower levels. "The rich are getting richer" is a misleading statement....everyone, from the poor to the rich, get richer. The increasing share of wealth in the top income categories in the US is more a byproduct of demographic trends - an aging and maturing population - than it is of a systemic, socioeconomic illness. Our economy, under the general theme of "Reaganomics" has made EVERYONE richer.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 10:15AM

"EVERYONE richer," Really?

“In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4% percent…. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1%…. in 1973.”

During the Clinton administration 1993 to 2000, the poverty rate fell each year, from 15.1% to 11.3%
During the Bush administration 2001 to 2008, the poverty rate rose each year, from 11.3% to 13.2%.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 10:44AM

Vtwin,
Poverty is a moving target. Poor people are better fed, clothed, sheltered, and have more material goods today than they did only 30 years ago.

A quick read on what poverty can actually mean.
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....in-america

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 12:04PM

You’re quoting the “Heritage Foundation” on the success or failure “Reaganomics?”

The “Heritage Foundation” “is a conservative American think tank,” “took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan,” " is a proponent of supply-side economics” -- Wikipedia,

Do basic research on your sources!

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 1:21PM

Vtwin,
You complain about me quoting the Heritage Foundation by quoting wiki?

The statistics are straight from the Census bureau. If you want to check them out yourself be my guest. They are rather easy to find if you do not mind doing the digging.

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 1:43PM

vtwin,

You're not only dumb, but you're a hypocrite.

I've changed my mind about you. You're NOT a student.

You're a leftwing college professor.

RT7| 7.7.10 @ 1:43PM

YOUR source is Wikipedia? HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA.... But seriously, in your new grade this fall, ask teacher what "research" means.

chemman| 7.7.10 @ 7:23PM

He probably has never taken a research based class in his life and therefore his teachers/professors wouldn't know the difference between research and opinion.

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 2:01AM

LOL, I can't believe anyone would quote Wiki as a reliable source. My students are not allowed to use it as a reference in their research papers for me or any other college professor I know.

Convet| 7.9.10 @ 6:08PM

Here we go gathering nuggets in May nuggets in May, nuggets in May...

Really?| 7.7.10 @ 10:44AM

It's not smart to constantly cherry pick the data from a random study and spout that little "nugget" as the tell all truth.

What about this statement from your same source?

"Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004."

Who was President in 1980? Oh yea... Carter - who was replaced by who again? Oh yea... Reagan. Again your failed attempts to espouse Reagan's legacy rings hollow.

Further, you omittied this too...

"The official poverty measure has been criticized for not accounting for several factors that can affect a family's economic well-being and for not having been updated, except for inflation, for four decades.

For example, while cash benefits from government assistance programs are included in a family's income when calculating the official poverty measure, benefits received in-kind such as food stamps, Medicare or Medicaid, employer provided health insurance, housing subsidies, and other social services are excluded. Taxes that families pay and tax credits they receive such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) do not enter into the official poverty determination.
"

So what do we learn from this? Those in poverty are not paying taxes, are getting free medical or employer payed medical, free food, as well as a slew of other benefits paid for by the "top 1%" or "wealthy at 250,000" or whatever the standard is today. Factor in the fact that social welfare and other related spending items have balooned to 50% of the federal budget and it sounds to me like the poverty standards are somewhat less than truthful.

Your arguments always sound great as sound bytes but seldom hold up to the actual weight of analysis.

breffnian| 7.7.10 @ 12:11PM

You are a classic liberal. Hardship must be legislated or redistributed away. There is no such thing as the human condition, human nature or individual responsibility. Your problem is always somebody else's fault. There is no such thing as human indolence or sloth. Your bad choices were made for you by somebody else.

What's really remarkable is how consistent the poverty rate is in good economic times and bad. There is something else at work here. It's called human nature.

"The poor you will always have with you"
Matthew 26:11
As a liberal, you probably don't believe in God, but you must admit the Bible is a fine primer for life.
Read it some time.

GBArg| 7.7.10 @ 12:27PM

Vitwin, you've been consuming too many arugula sandwiches. Time to take your meds and go lie down. Ask for mommy's cool hands on your sweaty forehead.

Really?| 7.7.10 @ 10:52AM

So is it wrong for those who have wealth to generate and create more wealth? You can put money that these same people with all the wealth are the same people taking risk with THEIR funds and investments.

What does the fact that they have more wealth have to do with anything? Rich people (like most people) typically have some motivation to keep getting richer. That is no different for anyone else regardless of income, background, race, creed, or current circumstances.

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 2:14AM

My brother and brother-in-law own their own businesses. Thanks to Obama's plans for higher taxes on businesses they are afraid they will have to lay off many of their employees in order to remain solvent. This saddens them a great deal but they don't know what else to do as in spite of great credit neither one has been able to get a small business loan to help with continuing recovery since Katrina and Rita nearly wiped them both out. Obama's plans hurt small businesses, their employees and their ability to expand and so hire more.

breffnian| 7.7.10 @ 12:02PM

This is nonsense. US GDP has increased seven fold in the last 30 years. Why don't you quote that statistic? As a result, people's lives are much better not worse.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 12:54PM

“This is nonsense,” this is against all my beliefs,” people's lives are much better.” Oh No! Say it Ain't So!

breffnian| 7.7.10 @ 4:58PM

It ain't so.
People who have lived long enough know that.
Peoples lives are longer happier healthier and easier than ever before, especially the poor.
This is due to increased wealth and technological advances, not redistribution which simply takes a dollar from one person and gives it to another.
That's why GDP is so important, not who owns what nor the "poverty rate" which will never change.
I'd rather be "poor" today than any other time in history. The poor of today live like kings compared to our grandparents.
You don't understand this probably because you are young and don't understand economics or human nature yet.
That's why the young love Obama.
Or you are a liberal and hence will never really grow up.

Jack| 7.7.10 @ 12:03PM

Love your sources! Let alone the fact that oversimplification is your chief trait. Sorry all, just couldn't resist.

carnot| 7.7.10 @ 1:52PM

"Run VT Run!!!"

A.M. Mallett| 7.7.10 @ 12:44PM

VT, for your own personal edification and benefit, you need to rethink your position. The truth of the matter is that inflation adjusted growth in GPD for the same period you note in your post was over 250%, over 500% unadjusted. The percentages you note in your post are quite misleading. The bulk of that increase resulted from equity investments that in turn fueled the massive increase in GDP by comparison. You are trying to state that the growth in private wealth held by a few was gained at the expense of the many. That is not at all the case as the GDP growth figures indicate. The period you note was prosperous for nearly all in terms of equity growth, employment and personal economic growth.
Your own financial well being depends much on knowing and embracing the truth rather than a convenient political nugget.

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 1:32PM

Nice link!

"sociology.ucsc.edu"

In other words, know-nothing, do-nothing left-wing jackass professors from the University of California at Santa Cruz...One of the most NOTORIOUSLY leftwing colleges in the country.

I used to get similar nonsense at UMASS. They claimed that they had the nation's most reknowned Marxist economics department!!

Sorry, but Professor Domhoff is a dumpkoff...And so are you.

ojo grande| 7.7.10 @ 9:33PM

Carol,
That my big fear...that if the Republicans win big in November...they still won't have the balls to REPEAL Obamacare and all the other bills the Democrats have passed in their hurry to Socialize America.
If we give the Republicans the power, they better come through for us...or we'll throw the lot of them out and start over. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FED UP.

ENOUGH ROPE| 7.7.10 @ 7:15AM

On election night Nov 2010, instead of feeling resentment at each future violation of our country by Obama and his cohort of thugs , I decided to regard each forthcoming betrayal of our country by the Democrats as evidence of their disloyalty that would be recognized by many of the people whom Obama deceived into voting for him. Give him and the Democrats enough rope, and they would hang themselves in 2010 and 2012. My hope on that night is proving true. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE MASTERS OF DECEIT.

INTJ| 7.7.10 @ 9:23AM

"Masters of Deceit" would imply they are fooling people, which by all indications, they are not. Only 38% of political independents and 81% of Democrats still approve of Obama - and he's more popular than the Congressional leadership!

Bill| 7.7.10 @ 7:31AM

Barry should be impeached for failure to uphold his oath of office. The rest should be investigated for corruption and let justice prevail.
I have never seen such a collection of incompetent people in all my life.

Deborah D| 7.7.10 @ 8:14AM

I totally agree. They should all be impeached as "enemies foreign or domestic". This is a purposeful ruining of the country by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and every Democrat who has voted for these policies. If not treason then it's at minimum criminal in my humble opinion.

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 2:23AM

I looked up the process on impeachment of the president to see if a regular citizen could start the process. Can't, bummer.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 7:35AM

"The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined."
This is lazy and misleading. When one includes all taxes - state, local, and payroll -each income quintile pays taxes roughly proportionate to its income. The real problem is spending:governments just spend too damn much. If we cut spending, taxes and their inherent economic inefficiencies would naturally decline.

Bill Husein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 8:54AM

That is not lazy and misleading. It is a fact.

As far as the other taxes you mentioned they are dwarfed by the federal taxes.

Your statement that each income quintile pays taxes roughly proportionate to its income is meaningless and not true. If they do not pay federal income taxes then your statement would have to be false.

On thing you are correct on is that there is too much spending. However as long as people see nothing wrong with the top 1% paying the freight then nothing will change.

The top 1% is portrayed as evil because they are rich.

Here is something to think about in terms of taxes and power.

Ayn Rand stated, "If money is the root of all evil, ask yourself, who is the root of all money?"

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 10:31AM

Bill,
Notice I did not say it was untrue, I said it was misleading. And it is misleading because it tells only part of the story. And my statement that each quintile pays TOTAL taxes roughly proportionate is true and easily verifiable. payroll, local, and state taxes are all money wage earners cannot spend. Those taxes tend to be much more regressive than federal income taxes, which are highly progressive. Also, notice no where did I say the top 1% of income earners were evil, my guess is their evilness is no different than the bottom 99%.

No, Federal Income tax revenues do not dwarf other taxes, in fact it is a minority of revenue for the Federal government. In 2008 income taxes represent 45% - about 1,085,000,000,000 - of Federal tax revenue, payroll taxes make up 36% about 908,000,000,000- , corporate taxes and excise taxes make up most of the remaining revenue. State taxes total 650,000,000,000 and this does not include local tax totals which are difficult to determine.

Where the disparity is is in effective tax rates - taxes less government checks- which is a function of spending not taxes.

Almost everyone working and not recieving government checks is overtaxed. The rich are only marginally more so than the rest.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 11:26AM

For someone who claims to be misquoted and you were not misquoted, you took what I wrote out of context. I made my remark in reference to income taxes and then you change the discussion to include all taxes at the federal level which is a different discussion but proves the point that the federal government takes in way too many fees and taxes but that's another issue entirely.

However, it does not change the income tax equation you originally referred to which is a fact. The fact is the top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined. It can't be refuted.

Also, whether you stated it was untrue or not is irrelevant. Your statement is misleading and filled with gibberish.

If 50% of the population pay no federal income taxes your statement is an outright lie. It would have to be.

Chew on that.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 12:40PM

Bill,
Point 1 - You do not address the fact that your statement "As far as the other taxes you mentioned they are dwarfed by the federal taxes. " is verifiably incorrect. I showed you the numbers, by no means can anyone say that less than 45% of Federal tax revenues dwarf other taxes and be remotely correct.

Point 2 - Each quintile does indeed pay IN TOTAL TAXES a percentage of income roughly proportiante to its income. Income taxes are just part of the equation. Federal income taxes while an important aspect of total tax load is not the only factor in determing total taxes paid.

Point 3 - Since you replied to my OP which was about total taxes paid how exactly was I to know you were referencing just Federal income taxes? Especially since you failed to state so.

Point 4 - I am sorry you could not follow the math. So I will remove the big numbers and make it simple. For every $4.50 in Federal income tax revenue there was $5.50 of other revenue, of which $3.60 was payroll taxes.

Point 5 - I never disputed that the top 1% paid more in Federal income taxes than the bottom 95% combined. I pointed out it was misleading because it does not truly address total state, federal, and local tax burdens.

What skews the fairness is not taxes paid it is money recieved. Read http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Obama was being up front, it is all about redistribution.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 3:47PM

Your insults aside, your math doesn't add up. In fact, here's a quote right from the report you linked to in your response. If it's true, then you don't understand taxes or math. It states clearly that wealth is redistributed from the top tow earning tiers to the lower. In the meantime stuff your sanctimonious attitude.

Also, their argument that spending and taxes can not be separated is baloney. One look at our 62 trillion entitlements which are promised but not funded proves that.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf
Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in taxes in 2004. Overall between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending;

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 3:58PM

Here's another statement right from the report which states exactly what Mr. Ferrara is stating:

However, when all taxes are considered together, America’s highest-earning income groups clearly pay the largest amounts of taxes to finance government spending programs.
Figure 1 illustrates a familiar story about the U.S. tax burden. It shows how much in taxes households in each income group pay each year on average to federal, state and local governments. As is clear from the figure, America’s tax burden varies widely across the U.S. income distribution.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 5:53PM

Bill,
Yes, the highest income groups have the heaviest aggregate tax burden. Please show me where I said otherwise. My point was total tax rate was far more proportiante than the facial "The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined."

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 5:48PM

Bill,
You say my math does not add up, please show me where.

And thanks for the quote it proves my point. Spending is redistributing income.

See what I said Bill, "What skews the fairness is not taxes paid it is money recieved. Read http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

Obama was being up front, it is all about redistribution."

There can be no redistritbution without spending.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 6:02PM

No, the article you posted proves just the opposite of what you wrote. Spending is not redistributing income. Tax policy does that. Spending is merely a consequence. You're engaging in circular logic.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 6:06PM

Also, you allude to Obama being "up front" implying that he was/is honest. He's a pathological liar and that's been proven many times.

The whole point is Hillary's statement on taxes was simply unfair and untrue. Do you deny that? If so, you're a useful idiot. Welcome to Stalingrad.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 7:50PM

Bill,
You can call names all you want if it makes you happy. An easy and logical inference from my posts is I think spending is far too high and needs to be cut. How exactly is that belief anywhere remotely similar to what Clinton said?

My point is quoting statistics on federal income tax burden alone is misleading since it tells only part of the story and easily combatted as a political matter. Most people feel pinched and that they pay too much in taxes and are hardly likely to have any sympathy to upper income earners.

Obama on the campaign trail said the following "My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

It was obvious to anyone watching that he was going to transfer even more money from the creators of wealth to the bottom tier of earners.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 7:42PM

Bill,
There is two parts to redistribution of income. First it is taken - either through taxes or borrowing - then it is given away. From the Tax Foundation paper -
"Now that we’ve looked at both the nation’s tax burden and government spending, let’s put them both together. When we do this, we end up with a measure of how much people pay into government, and how much government spends on to people in return. Economists sometimes refer to this as “fiscal redistribution” or the “fiscal incidence” of government policy. Figure 6 compares household tax burdens to the amount of government spending received by Americans. It answers the following question: “For every dollar of taxes paid, how much government spending is targeted at households in return?” As is clear from the figure, when government spending is considered along with tax burdens, the overall picture of the fairness of government policy is dramatically different from the usual picture of tax burdens alone."

Spending drastically changes the equation on net tax burden.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 8:22PM

I notice how you evade answering any direct questions. However, the report you linked to stated exactly the opposite of what you are writing. As far as Obama he's a pathological liar and just about everyone knows it.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 8:22PM

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 10:14PM

Bill,
I did not answer your silly question about Clinton because it was silly and did not warrant an answer. If you cannot tell where I stand on ANYTHING Clinton says more shame to you. Somehow because I am stated that total tax burden is far more proportianate than simply stating "The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined." paints a distorted picture because it fails to address payroll taxes, state taxes, local taxes and any other of the myriad of taxes paid by lower income quintiles I am a marxist fellow traveller. Judging the fairness of tax load by simply looking at Federal income taxes is like describing an elephant by looking at his trunk.

Of course, Obama is a liar. He says whatever the teleprompter tells him to. But that does not mean he never tells the truth, he does so quite often. He did it with Joe the plumber, he did it in San Francisco when he spoke about those who cling to their guns and religion. He will do so again.

Once again from the Tax Foundation As is clear from the figure, when government spending is considered along with tax burdens, the overall picture of the fairness of government policy is dramatically different from the usual picture of tax burdens alone."
Notice the last line? Which is entirely my point. Spending distorts the fairness of tax burdens.

The problem with measuring progressiveness of total tax burden lays in how income is measured. If we equate income money earned through wages and investment then the tax burden is pretty flat. The numbers are easy to crunch if you have any skill with Excel, the data is all in the Tax Foundation report. The problem is when we include government transfers as income, as it rightly should, tax burden become grossly progressive. If you are a Democrat/Liberal/Socialist you think it is a good thing. If you are me you think it is awful, presents an economic drag, and encourages bad economic behavior on the part of many people.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.8.10 @ 7:32AM

That tax study you linked to contains a fatal flaw and I'm surprised with all your alleged wit you didn't catch it. It includes all citizens of all states when it comes to state taxes, but 9 states pay no state income tax, and 11 others exclude federal pensions and 49 states do not tax social security. Therefore, there is a flaw in their study which skews their results and invalidates their conclusions. In the meantime you still didn't answer the question about Hillary Clinton because any answer would prove you're either a liar or don't know what you're talking about. Congratulations, you're a liberal!

Tom| 7.8.10 @ 11:41AM

Bill,
Do you know the meaning of average? It is very easy to calculate average state income/real estate/sales tax burdens per household. You total the tax revenue and you divide by the number of households. Of course the tax burden varies depending on state and local tax policies. The study is an examination of the nation as a whole.

It is a funny world where someone who thinks government spends too much and the tax burden is too high is considered a liberal. But sometimes some people are unable to muster any argument other than name callings. Congratulations, you're a middle schooler!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.8.10 @ 1:25PM

I don't know how to point this out to you moron but if 20% of the states don't pay taxes, and another 11 don't tax pensions what you are left with is a pool that reflects a larger number at the bottom who don't pay taxes even at the state level. Therefore, the study you linked to is totally flawed and in fact proves Mr. Ferrara's point. It also shows how Hillary is full of baloney and in fact so are you. Haha.

Tom| 7.8.10 @ 2:29PM

Bill,
Ok, so you do not understand what average means. Which is ok.

Also, you do realize people who do not pay state income taxes pay a variety of other taxes?
To further educate you, states who do not have income taxes generally have tax loads that are less progressive than those that do. This is because sales and property taxes tend to be regressive, since they are not indexed for income. Which only bolsters my point that total gross tax load is much flatter than Ferrara's facial statement would imply.

You seem to be obsessed with Clinton. Maybe you should seek help with that.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.8.10 @ 1:25PM

vtwin| 7.10.10 @ 2:19PM

In 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid only 40% of the of the total Federal income tax revenue. And because the income tax revenue amounted to less than 50% of total revenue, Social Security and Medicare taxes 40%, corporate and other 10%, the top 1% of income earners contributed not 95% but less than 20% the tax revenue collected by the Federal Government.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 3:51PM

What can I say; your points along with the link offer an insightful perspective on taxation in America that warrants further investigation?

vtwin| 7.10.10 @ 2:16PM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.11.10 @ 10:44AM

Your analysis is total baloney because you are including social security and corporate taxes. Social security is not subject to rebates or credits unlike income taxes.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.11.10 @ 10:44AM

Your analysis is total baloney because you are including social security and corporate taxes. Social security is not subject to rebates or credits unlike income taxes.

vtwin| 7.12.10 @ 4:27AM

“Your analysis is total baloney because you are including social security and corporate taxes.”
Ok, don’t include “social security and corporate taxes” $40% is not 95%. And, what about direct payments to the top 1%, example; the interest paid on their government securities; in 2009 the interest payments on the nation debt totaled $383 Billion.

“The top 1% of income earners in the U.S. pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% combined.”

That statement is bullsh*t
Peter Ferrara knows it!
I know it!
But you bought it hook, line, and sinker!

Doctor Right| 7.7.10 @ 2:09PM

Ayn Rand was frequently wrong.

For example, the quote you provide is inaccurate, and often misquoted.

It's from the Bible (1 Timothy 6:10).
"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

That's the "love" of money...Not money, itself.

Do you see the difference? Money is a benign unit of social commerce and interaction. But "the love" of money (as opposed to the Love of God) leads mean to do evil things.

It's not surprising that Ayn Rand would misquote this passage. She was an atheist who had as much use for the Bible as I have for Obama.

She also made a CRITICAL mistake in "ATLAS SHRUGS" when she condemned Robin Hood. This condemnation made a faulty analogy between the dominant societal structure of medieval England versus that of mid-20th century America. In short, there's no comparison.

She was also a malignant narcissist. When you consider that in context with her philosophy of "Objectivism", you begin to understand why she preferred a world where people should be free to do basically whatever they want without guilt or repercussions - A narcissist's dream!

Bill Hussein O'Staling| 7.7.10 @ 3:59PM

Ayn Rand was not quoting the Bible. That was a quote of her own making. In the meantime you sound like the narcissist.

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 2:48AM

If this is suppose to be an original quote by her then she has committed plagiarism against God (but she probably doesn't believe in God, as if that means God doesn't exist). As I tell the offenders I work with, "God has an extreme idea of time-out and it doesn't matter if you don't believe in God or not!"

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 2:28AM

The biblical quote is "the love of money is the root of all evil." If you're going to quote someone supposedly quoting the Bible make sure their version is correct or you just show your source's ignorance.

RCV| 7.11.10 @ 9:39PM

The rich aren't taxed more because they are evil, they're taxed more because they have more.

RCV| 7.11.10 @ 9:40PM

The rich aren't taxed more because they are evil, they're taxed more because they have more.

RCV| 7.11.10 @ 9:42PM

Sorry for the double entries - getting used to the new iPad.

Bill Husein O'Stalin| 7.7.10 @ 8:54AM

That is not lazy and misleading. It is a fact.

As far as the other taxes you mentioned they are dwarfed by the federal taxes.

On thing you are correct on is that there is too much spending. However as long as people see nothing wrong with the top 1% paying the freight then nothing will change.

The top 1% is portrayed as evil because they are rich.

Here is something to think about in terms of taxes and power.

Ayn Rand stated, "If money is the root of all evil, ask yourself, who is the root of all money?"

saleboter| 7.7.10 @ 7:54AM

Focused like a laser beam on jobs, jobs, jobs....... Oh look another socialist program, I guess jobs can wait.

WRTolkas| 7.7.10 @ 7:56AM

I am participating in driving out the Marxist-democrat. When I send out emails, I include paragraphs from Spectator and PatriotPost. I also end with "If you vote democrat in the next general election, don't bother to ever speak to me again."

Yep, it is that bad.

No matter what the tiny-o says, I can see what is really going on. We are having a record year in my industry. Manufacturing is going full tilt. I know why - next year it is going to come to a screeching halt. I see the train a-coming. This isn't going to be pretty.

WRTolkas

martin j smith| 7.7.10 @ 7:59AM

All of what is said in the article is all well and good--Politically for the opposition ( Republicans ) but there are three
things that must be done to assure that in the elections
One get out the vote, two organize against voter fraud and three--the Republican Party must be the Party of economic growth and have a very basic program that all voters could relate to. Turn class warfare around against BHO for the Democrat Party leaders and their fellow travelers are among the most wealthy of us.

Kitty| 7.7.10 @ 8:12AM

Are you certain there will be elections?

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 10:32AM

Kitty,
Of course there will be elections.

Deborah D| 7.7.10 @ 10:43AM

Kitty, I believe there will be elections, but Obama's "stimulus" funds will be spreading our wealth around to try to steal a few so let's hope Republicans have their ducks in a row (I won't hold my breath -- look how they lost in MN to Al (fricken) Franken.)

GreyLion| 7.7.10 @ 9:04PM

Kitty,
About 200 million gun owners, the 2nd amendment and itchy trigger fingers guarantee an election of one sort or another.

Grant Johnson| 7.7.10 @ 11:13AM

I would say rather that the Republican Party must be the party of economic FREEDOM. The "party of economic growth" implies that politics or government is the source of prosperity, which is the fallacy on which the Democrats (and country club republicans) base their policies. We must be prepared to advance the historically and logically evidenced notion that economic freedom is the source of prosperity and security.

Louis Jenkins| 7.7.10 @ 8:52AM

This whole mess is boiling down to a cresendo of failure. Now looking around Washington, DC, last weekend I'd never have known it. But in retrospect the doers and shakers have abandoned the town for the holidays. I saw acres and acres of roadways being built, buildings being errected, and other buildings getting new make overs. You would have thought that there was no recession-depression going on in America. But then I realized that it does not speak for the rest of the country. Unemployement 9.5%? Cocka! In reality our unemployment rate is nearer to 18
% or worse. If you can cut a stick a foot longer then do it. That's a foot more to put between you and Obamanomics.

David| 7.7.10 @ 8:57AM

In the summer of 09, several local investment advisors brought in someone from their corporate office to discuss the economy. This person discussed past recessions and how, based upon some of the signs they were seeing, the recession was over (just waiting for some Government Bureau to officially announce this based upon the formula they used). Unfortunately this person didn't take into account how well Obama and his minions would screw up the recovery (let's hope his inability to save the economy and the gulf from the oil spill doesn't translated into the middle east peace process. If it does then we'll see war before the end of the year - and if Iran gets the bomb there will be a nice healthy glow from the middle east).

Tenn Sllim| 7.7.10 @ 9:22AM

Opine
Well Said. Reality is usually unpleasant, as are true facts.
What was not stated, is that the path is patently deliberate. Rhetoric vs actions. The End Justifies the Means, and the end is obvious.
A bankrupt USA GNP, a Controlled Congress, a Controlled Media, and a Controlled Populace.
The Next page is one we all do not want to view.
Semper Fi
End
We WILL Prevail.

russel| 7.7.10 @ 10:04AM

Sure we are angry , ___ , a thousand different adjoinders apply , but the spaghetti - spined GOP has got to start fighting as dirty as the socialists if we are going to get out of the ditch and back on the road . We need a massacre come Nov. , it's do or die . The Marxist party is already hard at work on more dirty tricks GOP , so time to man up .

Howard| 7.7.10 @ 10:06AM

Obama and the Democrats are the true obstacle to growth. I remember in 2004 when the monthly job gain was 200,000 or so, the Democrats led by John Forbes Kerry (the Man of The People), called it the worse economy since the Great Depression. Kerry and his minions are rather quiet. By the way, if the GOP can only muster a pickup of 25 seats, they deserve to be liquidated as a political party. I think 40 is a bare minimum to clip Pelosi. However, many more are needed to break Obama's back.

Larsky| 7.7.10 @ 10:10AM

It is worth mentioning that even lefty pundits such as Mara Liason and Juan Williams (to name two and then not even these two are the hard core left) are VERY defensive about what is going on and visibly lashing out, shaken and struggling to defend the Obama administration. To not great effect I might add. As recently as a few months ago the left pundits still strutted with confidence in their leader, but not as much now. Perhaps even they have a head and a soul that tells them that something is not right here.

Most of my union friends still view the whole show as to what is in it to protect their entitled jobs, benefits and retirements. Hope they get everything they deserve.

I am sure Soros is smiling in his tower of the "EYE' ever so pleased with his puppett boy man king taking orders and sending his minions forth to do battle with the evil American citizens.

Hey!!!!! you on the left, be very careful what you wish for, it may not pan out as you think.

Something evil this way comes.

Rmm| 7.7.10 @ 10:28AM

Another good article,Peter.
Our puppet President should be considered Public Enemy # Uno. He is the main obstacle to any economic recovery and continues with his bilge to stymie, confuse, mislead and otherwise hold us down. Another year of his pipe-dreams and America as we knew it will no longer be the America we then live in.

Rmm| 7.7.10 @ 10:28AM

martin j smith| 7.7.10 @ 10:29AM

To Kitty: Am I certain that there will be elections: NO, nothing is certain. But, in any event as they say in the Boy Scouts " Be prepared " and as Ronald R said: " Trust, but verify".

neumena| 7.7.10 @ 10:41AM

"President Obama's economic policies were exactly the opposite of President Reagan's. I predicted that as a result they would produce exactly the opposite results."

Yes, cause we all know that by Reagan's second year, the unemployment problem was solved!

Wait...actually the unemployment rate was 9.7% in Reagan's second year, and it didn't reach below pre-Reagan levels until his second term (1986).

So eager to pass judgment, so eager to forget history.

ds80| 7.7.10 @ 5:24PM

And for an encore, neumena will remove his lips from Obama's butt.

Dr. Chaplain| 7.9.10 @ 2:58AM

LOL! Oh, that was good!!!

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 11:03AM

Actually, in January 81 unemployment was 7.5% and in May 84 it was 7.4%, which was well before Reagan's 2nd term started.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.7.10 @ 11:10AM

Peter,
Thank you so much for your thoughts...again.
I have copied/pasted the comment below in hopes you would see it here.
Thoughts?

Helpless, my left patootie!

Just as surely as December 7th, 1941 was a catalyst, we shall see a catalyst in these wars on two fronts.

I have only clues as to what the catalyst/s will be at this point, but I have read some US history.

In my mind we are coming to a consensus that our most fearsome enemy is within our gates, and yes, within our own elected government and bloated bureaucracies. (More on that later)

Our second most important enemy is Islam. Not radical Islam, not jihadi Islam.....just Islam.

Why "just" Islam? Because the word translates into English as "submission" and I am tranliterating the concept..."slavery to Allah".

It also teaches that our women are merely donkeys...beasts of burden. It teaches.....and enforces unto death...Sharia Law.

I'm honestly not as concerned with Islamic terrorists, as I am with the silent jihad going on all around us...unrecognized.
Many folks think it is just a whacky religion. It is not. It is the ultimate political tyranny.

It makes the Communist true believers look like naughty boys in a sandbox by comparison. The communists at least pulled up short of mass suicide by using their nukes.

If I remember the German term correctly, "kulturekampfh", it means literally "culture-conflict to the point of genocide".
Get over it folks. Accept the sad truth.

As President, my very first step would be to politely excuse every single non-citizen moslem from our shores. I would make it clear to every citizen that is moslem, that not one single tenant of Sharia law is legal in the United States of America.

We outlawed slavery in these United States a long time ago. We outlawed pedophilia in these United States a long time ago. Sharia is totally wrapped up in both....among a lot of other unacceptable behaviors. (see wife-beating)

We as individuals can begin the exit process by reporting child abuse and "child-bride pedophilia" to human services in our communities, and writing our congress critters.
We can have our local authorities examine the curriculum in the "Sharia schools" popping up everywhere, just like the authorities do with Catholic schools and Baptist schools.

Here the catalyst is simple. Recognize the slavery and begin speaking out about it...NOT hatefully, but with sadness and pity, and prayer and hope for a nation-wide jubilee for these poor people.

OK,
I thought I had to interject the above before getting back to our other war-front. (elected communists and their bureacrats.)

You know, in just about any "business model" one of the largest expense item segments...are hours of human beings' lifespan. Those hours must include the hours of lifespan of education and/or in training...for spending yet further hours of lifespan, laboring at the task.

Bureacracies, by definition, are desperately wasteful of both human potential...and human lifespan hours. Doubling down on the wasted lifespans within a bureacracy, it prevents the bureacrat from finding and enjoying a fullfilling life in a productive pursuit. (ie: making or growing things...or taking care of customers/patients/clients.)

Bureacracies are by definition ...malignant...cancerous...and naturally metastasizing entities....if not contained ruthlessly.

In the private sector, bureacracies are constrained, ruthlessly, by virtue of the ole' bottom line. In government, they can only be contained by surgery AND radiation, AND strong chemicals.

My really true hope for America is the fifty million plus voters that didn't get off their butts and vote in 2008.
.....and if we are at the stage of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genises 18th chapter), were there are not enough righteous men and women to vote the rascals out, then like Lott, we will have no choice but to remove ourselves, and our loved ones if they will follow.
(I'm thinking of removing ourselves from the "economy" until the firestorm is past.)

God bless America

GBArg| 7.7.10 @ 1:06PM

Ken, Well said.
I'm ready to join your brigade today.
Powder is dry, locked and loaded, time to push off.

martin j smith| 7.7.10 @ 11:10AM

neumana ? What exactly is Obama doing to create economic growth ? Be spevcific please ? Is he lower tzxes ? Is he giving breaks to small and other buesinesses that will encurage hiring ? How about the cost health care ? How about his energy polcies--with prospect of increase costs of energy ? How about the fact that Europeans are going the other way--cutting expenditure--foir example raising retirement ages !! for one. How about Obama's failure to deal effective;y withe Gulf Oil
sleake ( BP don't you know --a company that gave Obama and the Dems lots of money ). Ho about his cutting further drilling. Conclusions BHO's polcies are going nowhere Reagan went some where that is the difference.

snow100| 7.7.10 @ 11:26AM

He is misrepresenting the employment numbers. The decrease was caused only by the absence of temporary census jobs from the employment numbers last month. Those were the jobs that everyone said shouldn't be counted in scoring economic recovery anyway, remember? Another thing, I can't see how everyone is so hot to argue that the stimulus didn't work. We are not losing jobs on a monthly basis any more. Private sector jobs have grown for the past 6 months. The stimulus obviously did something. Maybe, it didn't do enough, but you cannot dispute that it had some effect.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 1:26PM

The question is not whether we are losing jobs anymore, the question is whether the stimulus has had a positive effect in job growth. If you compare this recovery with other recoveries the facial answer is no since job growth is far below what should be expected of a recession of this depth. Now, there may be reasons for that but that is something someone who is arguing the stimulus has worked needs to articulate. And frankly I've yet to see a cogent argument for the success of the stimulus.

Here's a little thought experiment: If government spends money more efficiently than the private sector why not just take it all? Set the tax rate at 100% and see what happens.

davelnaf| 7.7.10 @ 11:28AM

For Obama to believe in his Racine propaganda he would have to be insane. He might be a narcissist with a touch of megalomania but he is not insane. He believes he is on course to set this country up for VAT. Getting the VAT is the Democrats’ Holy Grail. They have been dreaming about it for years. Quite frankly Obama doesn't care if we go into a double dip recession or even a depression; as long as he gets the Value Added Tax he believes that with the increased revenues government spending will do what the private sector has been doing and has done in the past and this happens to be what Socialist everywhere are trying to do (although they never succeed in doing it). The author is exactly right when he says that the dems are now a Marxist party.

The Democrats are trying to get their hands on as much money as fast as they can. As contemporary Marxists they believe that getting their hands on the means of production doesn’t work nearly as well as getting your hands on the money. The $878 billion ‘stimulus’ was the product of the Obamanoids’ instinct for grabbing the money first and then deciding what to do with it later. As anyone can see in the behavior of today’s Marxist/Socialist/Progressive it is all about power and money and allowing market economics to survive because every parasite needs a host it needs to keep alive. This is the lesson that every Marxist/Socialist/Progressive learned from the failed experiments of the Soviet Union, the PRC, and everything in between.

Wally| 7.7.10 @ 11:31AM

Does Ferrara think you people are that stupid that he thinks that this nonsense over the deficit which he mistakenly often calls debt, is more important than unemployment and getting the economy going? Does he think you are that stupid that he thinks you live in some lala world where some THEORY about how beautiful free markets are is more important than the actual history of the U.S. depression in the 30s and the lost decade in Japan? Does he think you are that stupid that you can't easily look up the pathetic amount of jobs loss under Bush vs. that of Obama?

No, doesn't. But he is paid by the American Spectator who is mainly funded by Wall Street Banks, multinational businesses and Oil companies with one goal in mind - lower corporate taxes and capital gains. That is all they care about. And you guys here are patsies for those interests.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.7.10 @ 1:23PM

Wally,
I'm sorry, but I can't "fix stupid" either.
You are desperately stupid.

No further words are neccessary.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 1:28PM

Wally,
So you are looking to avoid the Great Depression and the Japanese lost decade by replicating the policies that led to both?

chemman| 7.7.10 @ 7:43PM

You'll have to pass on the brand of banana peels you are smoking. It must be first class stuff. We will need it in our dotage to see us through all the health care rationing your messiah is going to bestow on us.

No One Important| 7.7.10 @ 11:45AM

Germany is in recovery now - America still face down in the dirt. Companies sitting on trillions, afraid to invest and rehire.

Lets face it - idiot Obama and Pelosi in charge, no one wants to invest here - concerned whatever whackjob idea they'll come up with next.

HCR jammed down our throats, Cap n Tax, tax hikes coming, ridiculous banning of off shore drilling using a falsified document. . . .

Would you invest here? Of course not.

When Obama is neutered in November - we'll take our first sigh of relief - but we won't begin a full throated recovery until Obama and his veto pen and executive order power are gone in 2012.

Lets face it - the democrats are keeping us face down in the mud - and like Obama who takes the "I won" mentality to "all things Obama" as the only justification he needs for his policies. . . . .he won't get the "message" until he is slapped hard in the face after November - and then we need to prove how malicious his arrogance is by watching him veto bill after bill after bill - to show the nation "look, we're not going to recover until this guy gets out of office - he's going to keep dragging us down". . . .

The recovery will start after the november elections when Obama is neutered. . . but it won't get into full swing until he's gone in 2012.

martin j smith| 7.7.10 @ 11:59AM

Wally, look atEurope. Their wonderful; paradise has failed once again. So, don't put down the free market so quickly. They key in the free market is Free-to succeed or fail. It is also incentive to invent and be the best you can.The BHO poisons the free spirit,ingenuity, and incentive. Eurpe is faving the need to deal with the main reality. There is x money and y expenses. The do not match. But, if you cut spending and lower taxes causing incentive you get job growth, income, and then there is enough tax revenue to even the score you get y money for y expenses. and maybe even a surplus. As for Big business 1--The Democrat Party got hundrends of millions from BIG BUSINESS 2: CRONY CAPITALISM. BIG BUSINESS PERFECT TOGETHER AND THAT MEANS BHO AND ALL HIS PROTITUTES IN BED TOGETHER.

BobSledd| 7.7.10 @ 12:02PM

We are instituting the EXACT SAME Policies we did after the onset of the Great Depression..
We are:
1: Raising Taxes
2: Increasing Regulation
3: Instituting Protectionsism

Hoover and FDR: Raised taxes, increased regulation, and we passed the Smoot Hawley Act that restricted free trade..
ALL THAT kept us from growing naturally out of recession...
That kept us weak. We cut Defense spending. THAT created an atmosphere for Germany and Japan to ascend into the vacuum we left, and we all know the rest of the story...
We need another Reagan to emerge and rescue us from the modern day Jimmy Carteresque perfomance we are seeing.
Those who forget the lessons of the past are bound to repeat them.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 3:27PM

You don't know what you are talking about.

Obama:
1) Lowered taxes for almost everyone (95%)
2) Promotes trade worldwide - guess you missed his announcements today, huh?
3) Increasing regulation - yep after 30 years of dismantling it, we get the Great Recession, the Great Oil Spill, and dozens of dead miners. Regulation isn't bad, it provides common sense protections of us, our environment and our economy.
"Those who forget the lessons of the past are bound to repeat them. " - too bad you don't know anything about the 1920's, where we really have repeated the same credit crisis. Listening to Republican chants of less regulation and government is bad has gotten us here over the last 30 years... so enjoy what Reagan and the Bush's wrought .... and stuck us with.

breffnian| 7.7.10 @ 5:36PM

1) Temporary tax cuts stimulate nothing. The Bush tax cuts are set to expire next year and Barry is planning a VAT to pay for his massive deficits.
2) It's strange to see Barry pushing trade agreements that his party abhors. He spent his first term demonizing corporations and now he is a free trader? My guess is he is crabbing rightward knowing Dems will be trounced in November. He is throwing his party under the bus.
3) We don't have a problem with regulation, just inept regulation or "red tape". Government regulation didn't stop the financial crisis even though we had plenty of agencies overseeing the economy. In fact, Government did a lot to cause it e.g. Fanny and Freddie, which aren't even covered in the Dodd bill. Government regulation did not prevent the oil spill, even though we had an agency for that too, and red tape is getting in the way of the cleanup. The Federal response has been dire.
Do you really want to give these idiots more power? All it is is another opportunity for lobbying and graft.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 7:50PM

1) The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy, it just hurt our ability to reduce the deficit. He is the first President since Herbert Hoover to leave office with less jobs in the economy than when he started.
2) Large corporations don't provide jobs - small business export assistance is what he is promoting. Large corporations don't help anyone but themselves. Wall Street, Big Banks they all ran wild because the government under Bush let them, defunded the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be the watchdogs, he allowed the regulation of industry to go lax. That includes Freddie and Fannie, which by the way were under Bush's control as well.
The result was what we've all been living through, and now with Obama's attempts to re-regulate the industries involved, the Republicans stand in the way at every turn. And, then, you have the nerve to complain about it?

3) Inept is a good word when applied to Republican regulations ... I agree. Whether the regulators are actually in bed, literally, with the industry they are supposed to regulate, or look the other way, or allow the industry to fill out their own audit forms, regulation is considered BAD in Republican circles, and we're seeing the results and living with the damage. In addition, when you have industry criminally negligent and lying about their capabilities and response plans, the last thing you need is lax regulation. Thank you Republican Presidents and Republican Congress.

If you really want to blame Obama for all the problems he inherited, then you must blame Bush for 9/11, since it happened on his watch - now, do you?

chemman| 7.7.10 @ 7:47PM

didn't do too well in those math and logic classes did you. Total pages of regulations increased from the end of Clinton's second term to the start of Obama's first term.

Skinner| 7.8.10 @ 7:51PM

How about Blueguy?

1) Wrong. Only withholding was lowered. The tax rates didn't change. Your bring home may have increased a little, but your tax liability stayed the same. Simply put, if your income didn't change from '09 to '10 (mine did - it went down, pay cut to keep my job) the return you get for '10 will be less than '09.
2) What does the USA have to trade when manufacturing jobs are disappearing, and the price of products is going up?
3) I'm sorry, but the "Great Oil Spill" was in part brought on by existing regulation not being enforced by the current administration. That would be....
Yes, and the past has shown that Kenysian policies currently being enacted don't work.
Anything else?

BobSledd| 7.9.10 @ 11:18AM

Obama lowered taxes? Where? For Whom?
Taxes are going up across the board, overtly, and in stealth fashion.
Uninsured individuals of limited means are being required to purchase health care. I call that a form of taxation.. They are also lowering their threshold for "no new taxes" at a certain income level...EVERYONE will bear the brunt of this reckless boroowing and spending, including our children and grandchildren.

Promotes trade worldwide?
Where? He is widely viewed as being hostile to our trading partners, and has trashed England, and the Constitution of Honduras by supporting a man attemtpting to over ride their Democratic Constitutuion..
He has embarved Chavez, and tried to embrace Iran but has been slapped down by the Mullahs.
The Great Recession is still going on IN SPITE of Trillions thrown at SEIU members.
He has been in office for over a year and a half.
His Adminitsration signed off on the Gulf of Mexico regulations, and in fact, he authorized MORE deepwater drilling, NOT LESS.
BTW..Where was he the 1st 60 days of this crisis?
No need to answer. We all know.
Finally, small business is NOT hiring due to the following facts, unpleasant as they may be for you and the Left.
Increased regulation and expense (See Healthcare for one) uncertainty (see cap and trade and the expiration of Bush tax cuts) and a feeling of ANTI BUSINESS sentiment expressed by the Business Roundtable ina 54 page document,a summary pasted below.... They were formerly in his camp until he took this hard turn toward taxes and regulation...

Business Roundtable Chairman Voices Concern about Negative Effects of Current Government Policies
By brtadmin
Created 06/22/2010 - 19:07

In a speech at the Economic Club of Washington, Ivan G. Seidenberg, Chairman of Business Roundtable and Chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications, called on the Administration and Congress to re-examine public policy priorities and recommit to working with business leaders to expand the economy and grow private-sector jobs in the United States.

GBArg| 7.7.10 @ 12:16PM

Great article, and I'm amazed that some nincompoop put an "it's" into Longfellow's poem where an "its" was, originally.

Lose the culture folks, one apostrophe at a time.

. . . or dont it matter no more, since 49% of new college graduates dont know whud da branches of govmint are? Thanks, crappy Librul perfessers.

Artesian Jacket| 7.7.10 @ 12:47PM

Vitwin: Reaganomics gave this country 25 years of prosperity. Son, put the crack pipe down before you post again.

Thomas Paine| 7.7.10 @ 1:47PM

Yeah, right.

You're forgetting: BUSH caused the Great Depression....

Cheers.

Kent Lyon| 7.7.10 @ 1:56PM

Unfortunately, America is now, lock, stock, and barrel, a Rhett Butler nation. No one gives a d---. Our freedom and our country are gone.

GreyLion| 7.7.10 @ 9:13PM

Speak for yourself Kenny, I kinda like this place and think I'll stay awhile as in "this is MY country" and I will use the tools provided to insure its survival. I'm gonna vote first and if the dems win (vote fraud is a distinct possibility) I'll review my options. But, like the English bull dog said "never,never, never give up"

Mick Russom| 7.7.10 @ 2:00PM

Looks like Keynes is discredited yet again for the 70th year in a row.

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 2:04PM

I will keep saying it until it finally sinks in.

Depression Era Policy's produce Depression Era results.

The Democratic Party mythologized and propagandized FDR and his administration as one of brilliant policies fighting against tremendous odds. As a result the academic establishment has been teaching that FDR economic policies not only fixed the Great Depression but came close to producing a Economic Utopia.

The academic community never analyzed FDR or Keynesian policies in any depth or detail. They only propagated the myths and illusions. As a result it is strictly a cause and effect relationship of putting Academics in charge of the US economy that another Great Depression is imposed on the American public.

The current Economic Depression is a direct result of the actions of the Obama administration. That is why Obama must continuously lie about his economic policies and their results.

In my opinion, Obama most outrageous lie is the “Stimulus Package” is what stopped the economy from falling into a greater Depression such as 15% unemployment. It is a fact that the Federal government's own graphs and analysis that shows the “Stimulus” had the exact opposite effect than Obama said it would.

The “Stimulus” fiasco was so obvious even John Stewart noticed it.
Not that Obama will notice the facts and change economic course.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 3:20PM

Did you live in this country in September 2008? Do you know who was President then? Did you know the downturn started in 2007? Did you know the downturn seeds were planted in 2005 and earlier? (you can understand that if you listen to the Phil Angelides/Bill Thomas Commission hearings with Goldman Sachs, AIG and others. )

"The current Economic Depression is a direct result of the actions of the Obama administration." and - either you are stupid or a liar. This Economy is a direct result of the loose credit policies of the later Clinton era and GW Bush's laissez-faire policies regarding Wall Street and Investment Banking.

On top of that, you can thank Dubya for a whopping 700 Billion in TARP money with little or no oversight, auditing, or discovery as to where the money went.

On the other hand, you can thank Obama and the stimulus for stopping the bleeding of 750,000 jobs/month lost when he took office. The economy is slowly recovering, but it IS recovering ... not that you care, do ya?

"It is a fact that the Federal government's own graphs and analysis that shows the “Stimulus” had the exact opposite effect than Obama said it would. " - another bald-faced lie - unless you care to show those charts and graphs? Proof please? Links? Can you?

If you really care, tell your Senators to support the extension to unemployment compensation for those who have lost their jobs due to the Wall Street gang who made Billions off the backs of all of us.

Cpm| 7.7.10 @ 4:14PM

The economy didn't start to take a dump until the democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Unemployment under Bush got as low as 4.6% . I blame that on Bush.

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 4:33PM

Greetings PurpleGuy

You are really seriously FUNNY. LOL

You obviously did not see the John Stewart Daily Show last night.
John really lampooned Obama-economics especially the “Stimulant” fiasco.
Even the Obama supporters are abandoning Obama-economics as it is a disaster.

As you are still clueless as to why the banking crisis occurred I see no point in trying to explaining it to you. You would not believe me anyway.

So I will amuse myself in your blithering confusion, LOL.

So keep those Posts coming.
under Obama-economics the TAS Online readership needs all the laughter we can get.

breffnian| 7.7.10 @ 5:50PM

Do you remember the congressional hearings when Bush sought to rein in Fanny and Freddie (in 2005 I think) and Democrats like Barney Frank blocked it saying they were sound corporations that were needed to "provide affordable housing". Sounds like the housing crisis in a nutshell to me, which is the origin of all our current difficulties.
I think most of the TARP money has been paid back, right? Do you know where all the stimulus money went? To support SEIU jobs on public payrolls?
Are you suggesting we would have continued to lose 750k jobs a month without Obama? That is nonsense. The recession had to stop somewhere, GDP can't decline to zero.
This recession is already the longest since the great Depression, two and a half years. It is not even certain that it is over yet, GDP may decline further. Growth and employment are flagging. Obama is not to blame for the recession but this anemic recovery is his.

prestonsbrooks| 7.7.10 @ 2:30PM

Obongo is a racist, socialist revolutionary who is determined to crush the USA. Until we get enough onboard to realize that, we're stuck with Stupid.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 3:07PM

So, did MUST think the same of GW Bush, who increased the deficit 3-fold? Increased the Government by 30%? Started 2 wars he couldn't finish? Illegally wiretapped and spied on Americans? Illegally tortured? Well, do you ?

Jim O'Brien| 7.7.10 @ 2:32PM

Obama's policies and the opinions of the Democrat majority in Congress are exactly the opposite of what is needed to get the United States out of the economic quicksand. Instead of more government, we need far less. Government spending should be cut by at least $1.5 trillion right away. Instead of letting the Bush tax cuts expire, or increasing taxes in any other way, taxes should be dramatically decreased to spur economic growth.
Elimination of the federal income tax (and the IRS), and replacing revenue with a simple national sales tax, would bring about unprecedented economic freedom and growth. This concept, known as the Fair Tax, has been introduced in Congress but has been shoved under the rug because both Republicans and Democrats don't want to relinquish the control over our lives provided to them by 67,500 pages of tax regulations. See www.fairtax.org

R Martin| 7.7.10 @ 2:41PM

An excellent piece and very worthy of attention. Professor Meltzer is spot-on about the two most successful fiscal stimulus programs being broad, permanent tax reductions. He could have gone even farther back in history and sited the tax reductions advocated by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon in 1921. Congress enacted Mellon’s proposals—reduced the top rate from 75 percent to 25 percent, lowered the bottom rate to one percent and doubled the lowest taxable income level. The Roaring Twenties ensued and prices remained stable throughout the period.

Professor Meltzer might also have pointed out that the two least successful fiscal efforts were the Revenue Act of 1932 and Lyndon Johnson’s tax increase and tax surcharge in 1968. The 1932 tax increase was the largest in U.S. peacetime history and it led to a 57 percent decline in GDP and triggered the Great Depression. Johnson’s effort included a 10 percent tax surcharge (who but the Democrats could come up with a tax on taxes?), a ballooning of the federal budget deficit and galloping inflation. That led to over a decade of economic disaster (including a 70 percent stock market decline) until Ronald Regan put things right.

Mr. Ferrara is correct about what may happen if Obama’s expected tax increases (including the odious VAT) become law and history supports him. He’s also right about the importance of this year’s congressional elections.

Jim O'Brien| 7.7.10 @ 2:48PM

Another fact of life which Obama types don't seem to understand is that tax revenues decline when tax rates increase, thereby adding to the deficit and national debt.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 3:04PM

Comparing Reaganomics with Obamanomics is a ridiculous comparison. It's a false comparison.

First, Reagan came into office with high inflation coupled with a recession caused in large part by the Arab Oil Embargo and ultimately followed the normal business cycle. The results were not even in by this time in his Presidency. Effects of Reaganomics, if any, weren't felt under 1983 - his 3rd year in office. Even VP Bush called Reaganomics "Voodoo" Economics. So much for Reagan, the "One".

Second, President Obama came into office after the worst FINANCIAL DISASTER in 70 years hit this country. Everyone was frightened of another Great Depression - and we ain't completely home yet, kids. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that when the banking and financial industry is hit, the ENTIRE economy is hit hard. Reagan did not face that, Obama has. Nor did Reagan face 2 wars at the same time, Obama has. Only Obama shares with GW Bush the specter of Terrorism. Reagan did not face that. And, lastly, Obama isn't even in his second, let alone 3rd year. The verdict is still out - but the economy stopped it's free fall, has reversed course, sputtering, but growing again.

So you see, the comparison, while wildly exciting to the anti-Obamaites, is a false comparison. We all ought to hope that Obama succeeds, just I hoped Reagan succeeded. You only have 1 President.... try supporting him once in a while.

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 3:45PM

Greetings PurpleGuy

What is it about Liberals and Lefties that they must avoid reality at all costs.

Of course one can compare Obama-economics with Reagan-economics.
A even worse comparison for Obama would be with Putin-economics.

Putin imposed a 13% flat tax on personal income and gave businesses a choice between a 6% tax on gross revenue or a 15% tax on profit.

As a result of a flat tax and low corporate taxes the Russian GDP and Russian monthly real income has increased by a factor of 6. The contrast with Obama's policies are even more extreme than with Reagan's economic policies. To be blunt, can Obama claim to increase personal wealth by SIX TIMES.

PurpleGuy--- You can believe the MYTHS, LIES and MSM Propaganda of Obama and his Minions, if you want.
Just do not expect me or anyone else to believe you or the Obama lies.
The Truth is too obvious to ignore.
Try as you might to avoid it.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 4:39PM

Your lack of economic prowess or even basic knowledge is staggering. Even Alan Greenspan admitted he was wrong in allowing the credit and housing bubble to continue. Did you miss that little piece of data? I'll guarantee you that he knows more about the economic policies of the United States over the last 25 years than anyone on this site ever will. You really should read his book before you and all your "knowledgeable" types open your mouth and prove you lack of knowledge.

And, no, it is not a good comparison Obamanomics and Reaganomics. Reaganomics you can compare with Bushonomics. No, actually, that doesn't work - Bush killed the surplus and the growth of the Papa/Clinton 1990's. You could compare Reagan to the 1957 Recession under Eisenhower. And, in that light, Reagan did okay, but not that great.

But you do need to compare Obamanomics with Hooveronomics. Those are the true comparisons, with more similar conditions. In one case, we went into the Great Depression. In Obama's case, we did not. Now, with the hole that Bush left us all in, how fast did you expect the good life to return? The whole verdict on Obama is not in yet, regardless of your shrill screeching (for political reasons, I might add), and in that comparison, Obama is far better than Hoover ever was.

So in a couple of years, you could compare Obamanomics to FDR's policies, but not yet. Have a nice day.

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 5:30PM

Greetings PurpleGuy

You are still FUNNY. LOL

Greenspan, Bush, Hoover and Reagan.
All the little hobgoblins of Liberalism fly around you, messing with your head, don't they.

But you missed the one person who caused the Banking Crisis.
It was Treasury Sec Hank Paulson who caused the original banking problem with his “Mark to Market” folly. The banking chain reaction failure soon followed.

On the original point in which your arguments did not disprove::::
Depression Era Policies produce Depression Era Results.
The Flat Tax, Low Corporate Tax Rates and low governmental borrowing encourage economic activity.
High Taxes and Governmental borrowing kill economic activity. Always.

PurpleGuy--- Keep believing in the Liberal lies and Myths and posting them on TAS Online.
The conservatives need a foil to play with.

centrist| 7.8.10 @ 2:59AM

this is a deflationary recession which is completely different than a inflationary recession. The dollar is running stronger than the investment market there banks are reluctant to give loans because if inflation hits the loans that they give now will be devalued . If u have money now you would use it on spending and then when inflation hits you could the loan back with a devalued currency. costing you less. so if america tries to pay back its debt now it would due so at a much greater price.Why you think all this spending actually going on? Its a scam that actually benefits americans depending on what u spend it on... This is why the debt issue is overblown and all politics.Americans need to push for more spending on job infastructure here in america like we did for other countries in our free trade agreements. Republicans and demovrats dont get the big picture

Crafty Bernardo| 7.7.10 @ 3:04PM

What a lot of the commenters in here don't seem to understand about the deficit under Obama is that the overwhelming majority of it was baked into the cake during the Bush administration. It's like these fools think a president starts at $0 on day one, with no legacy obligations left over from the other guy... it's like someone signing up for a mountain of debt, and then passing the debt service on to the next guy, and then everyone piles on the next guy for having having too many expenses.

Bush left office with a projected 2009 deficit of 1.2 trillion from policies that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Barack Obama, President. On top of that, Obama was forced to spend a helluva lot more on stimulus and bailouts to stem of the financial panic that started squarely under Bush's watch. Legislation signed by Obama (excepting the stimulus which, again, was something forced on this President and not exactly somethign he wanted to do), has been effectively budget neutral.

And that's a big part of how "Reaganomics" works.. cynically run up deficits on Republican tax cuts and wars, and force as much of the payback as possible on the next guy in the hopes of putting him in a fiscal straightjacket from which he cannot govern due to criticisms of "deficit spending"... It works because the average American doesn't pay attention to budgetary policy to understand this, and when Reagan's (or Bush's) bills come due they Blame Bush the Elder, Clinton, or Obama because they're left holding the bill. It's a standard "Hog and Jog". Reagan and Bush II feast at the buffet and then sprint out the restaurant before the bill hits the table, leaving some poor sap at the table to fight with the restaurant owner (citizenry).

All you conservatives are like a wife who signs up for mountains of debt and then get pissed at your husband when he is forced to pay the bill.

Nate| 7.7.10 @ 3:13PM

Obama's stimulus was (roughly) 1/3 tax breaks for the middle class and small business; 1/3 aid to states who are cash-strapped by the RECESSION conservatives denied was even happening while they were in power; 1/3 infrastructure projects that are a) stimulative and jobs-producing and b) necessary given the atrocious and disgraceful condition of the nations roads, bridges and waterways.

The recession began in December of 2007 -- quite a long time before Obama took office.

The economy was losing approximately three quarters of a millions jobs per MONTH at the end of Bush's term and beginning of Obama's.

It's true, job GAINS are not as high as anyone would like, and it's true that private sector hiring is not so robust, but we've gone from an utter economic catastrophe to a modest recovery. I'm not exactly sure where you guys think this recovery came from if you think the stimulus played no role in it. The tooth fairy? Jesus? No one was SPENDING, so the government had to. It's pretty simple and it's pretty clear it alleviated somewhat the downturn and gave footing to the recovery.

breffnian| 7.7.10 @ 5:53PM

Where did the recovery come from?
Are you suggesting that the recession could have continued for ever i.e. GDP gone to zero?
This "recovery" is the end of the fall and the start of a new economic cycle.
It is weak as Obama's polices are anti business and anti investment.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 7:30PM

During the pressure of the crisis and the world economy tanking, all economists agreed the stimulus was necessary, and perhaps the current stimulus would not even be enough. Crisis and fear has a way of clarifying the debate.

But, now, since the worst was averted, thanks to first to Bush/Paulson and then Obama/Geithner, and time is put between us going over the cliff, politics once again starts creeping in with the ideologue's dogma leading the way on the right.

In fact, if the "Party of No" wasn't so dogmatic, and actually helped the President, we'd be further along in recovery. Unfortunately, they see Obama's problems as a win for them. Trouble is, they're throwing us all under the bus to regain power, and we've seen their playbook before. McConnell/Boehner won't be any different than they were under Bush. Count on it.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.7.10 @ 3:18PM

Well folks,
Purpleguy
and
Crafty
Finally got out of bed and got stuck on stupid again.

Sorry folks,
I just can't fix stupid....and liars lie, sadly, mostly to themselves.

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 4:49PM

Greetings Ken

Just a quick question.
Do you think PurpleGuy Crafty, and Nate have the mental horsepower to understand the concept of a “Classic Banking Liquidity Crisis “. Or is its cause and affects beyond them?

I await your reply.

Nate| 7.7.10 @ 5:26PM

Dixie --

Let's say I didn't understand what that term means. Would that really be an indication of my "brainpower"? It sounds like a term of art, something that can be learned if taught well. So why not tell me what it means, why it's significant to the conversation, and what you think understanding it might illuminate? That's sort of how we discuss important issues of national interest. (I think I know what this term means, but I'm not sure. I assume your anxiety is about the national debt, something I'm sure you have cause to be alarmed about. I wonder: were you alarmed when Bush was piling up deficits while the economy was growing? Were you up in arms while he put two wars, a round of tax cuts, and a bailout for the banks on a credit card?)

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 6:47PM

Greetings Nate

Since you asked, I will explain.
A Classic Banking Liquidity Crisis occurs when the banking system as a whole does have the liquid money to supply the economy with enough money to operate at the current rate. As a result the economic activity must decrease to match the money supply available.

And Yes, Nate, I was astounded when Bush and Rumsfeld announced the Global War on Terror was going to last longer than his administration. I knew then Rumsfeld did not know how to win a war.

Bush's folly was to declare war on a tactic not who was and still attacking us. A war that lasts 8+ years is a mark of incompetence.

Nate| 7.7.10 @ 7:29PM

As to declaring war on a tactic, Amen sister.

We are protected from terrorists by smart, patient men and women (especially the ones who know Arabic) who do quiet, gruelling, thankless, endless detective work. It won't make a thrilling TV show like 24, but it's all we've got.

You're right about Cheney too. The Republicans have worked "the two Santas" strategy for decades. (The two Santas are tax cuts and defense spending, both of which are intended to stimulate the economy and purchase votes without consideration of the effect on deficits, which they've been able to fob off onto Democratic presidents.)

Thanks for the definition of that term. I'm not sure what it means in this situation. Our recession predated the Obama administration by 14 months. The economy has gotten better since Obama has been in office. Maybe what you're saying is true (I'm not an economist), but I guess I should just admit I'm unqualified to answer your point.

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 7:02PM

Oh, By the way Nate:

It was VP Cheney that pushed the theory that deficits do not matter.

It is Obama that is making the same mistakes that FDR made using the same economic theories.
It is the Obama administration that is causing the current Depression by causing a Classic Liquidity Crisis.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 7:22PM

"It is Obama that is making the same mistakes that FDR made using the same economic theories." - That depends on what FDR policies you're talking about.

I'm just spitballing here, but would you consider 3 years enough time for a policy to take effect? If you look at the Great Depression, it was Hoover's policies in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 that caused the deep severity of the Depression. FDR wasn't even President until March 1933.

His policies did start to bring us out of the Depression by 1935, but he then pulled back and caused the mini-Depression in 1937. Obviously, the rearmament for WWII took us completely out of the Great Depression later on.

If you really understand what happened in those years economically, not politically spun, you can clearly see what worked and what didn't. FDR tried both. What Obama is doing now, is what worked. If we pull back now, which all the Righties want, we'll slide back potentially, just as in 1937. We might not, since this isn't another Great Depression, but we've been here before. Do we want to take the risk? Aren't you afraid to?

Tim*| 7.7.10 @ 8:51PM

FDR continued Hoover's interventionist policies and dramatically expanded them, raising taxes and imposing crushing controls.

" The interventionist schemes of the Roosevelt administration were an unmitigated economic disaster. Suffice it to say that by 1937, after more than four years of Roosevelt's policies (and after eight years of the combined Hoover-Roosevelt New Deal) -- after the National Industrial Recovery Act, the abandonment of the gold standard, the tripling of taxes, more labor legislation and many similar acts of governmental interference -- unemployement rose to more than ten million, and business activity fell to virtually the same low reached in 1932. "
The Capitalist Manifesto : Andrew Bernstein

Dixie Pixie| 7.7.10 @ 9:14PM

Greetings PurpleGuy

As you are still floundering around, I will make this simple for you.

Most business have asynchronous income streams (sales and other income) and synchronous expenses.(payroll,utilities, material, etc,etc). To bridge the two conditions requires a pool of money to span the days where money is going out but not coming in. The banking system and to a lesser extent Wall Street provides that money.

If the private sector money supply availability drops below a comfortable level a business must cut back expenses to stay in business. Since any business expense is some other business income any decreases in the private sector money supply will cause a slow down in economic activity. The greater the contraction of the private sector money supply the greater the contraction of business activity.

When the banking sector implodes or the Federal Government starts grabbing large amounts of the private sector money supply a Classic Liquidity Crisis can occur. If there is not enough money to drive the private sector economic activity the private sector must slow down or shut down.

Obama's and FDR's mistake is to hammer and pillage the private sector for the benefit of the public sector. However it does generate public sector union votes at the expense of the countries economic activity.

Obama's problem is he has misinterpreted the cause of FDR's popularity. It is Classic Liberal Mythology that it was FDR economic policies which caused his popularity. So to gain FDR levels of popularity simply implement FDR economic policies.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
The two were not related but was caused by separate actions on separate systems.

So we are now faced with Obama repeating the same mistakes as FDR made in the mistaken idea Obama will be more popular. Obama's crash was preordained.

Was that simple enough for you PurpleGuy.

Purpleguy| 7.7.10 @ 7:23PM

Leave it to you to be open-minded and kind ... perhaps some book learnin' would do you some good.

Crafty Bernardo| 7.7.10 @ 3:20PM

Or, more bluntly... Bush got us into two wars and simultaneously passed tax cuts for the wealthy and increased domestic spending while cynically deferring as much of the deficit spending as he possibly could until the next guy was in office. All of our prior wartime presidents paid for warfare as much as possible with tax hikes and/or austerity programs and did whatever was reasonably possible to not burden following American leaders with their debt.

'Nuff Said.

The verdict is still out on Obama. It is possible that he, like Clinton, is lucky enough to preside over an economic boom period and uses it to balance the budget and leave a surplus before it's all said and done. It's also possible that he spends like a drunken sailor for four or eight years and the economy doesn't recover. Obama could be a bigger budgetary disaster than Bush. He also might not be. It's too early to tell.

But the verdict is in when it comes to Bush on federal budgetary policy. he was an unmitigated disaster. Period.

And that's the unvarnished, unpartisan truth. Sorry to all you ideologues out there who just choose wilful ignorance and idol worship over blatant truths and reason.

Dope and Chains| 7.7.10 @ 4:39PM

Oh, but the verdict is already in: The Dilletante Chief is no more than George Soros' puppet, there to create the ideal conditions for that evil little troll to make another couple of billion by destroying the dollar. Soros made his wealth by wrecking currencies and impoverishing hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Ask a Thai, Malaysian, Indonesian or Korean about him sometime, and be prepared to marvel at just how quickly the air becomes blue with all the invective you'll be hearing. All he has to do is wait for just the right time to spring his trap on the dollar, and he'll compound his wealth. What's incandescently rich about all this is that Your Hero the neo-Communist Zero is far too dimwitted to comprehend that his will be the last corpse under the bus – while Soros laughs all the way to the bank, again.

I hope you take deep pride in the fact that your Soros-turfing has been paid for by the misery of millions. How does it feel to make a living doing the bidding of a man who makes Gordon Gekko look like a rank amateur?

Nate| 7.7.10 @ 3:20PM

America must increase spending in three areas:

1. Education

2. Energy

3. Infrastructure

This will take budgetary discipline, cuts in other spending, and some kind of tax increases.

There's no way around it. We either do what it takes to compete in a global economy, or we become what we already show signs of being: a dumpy, slow-witted giant incapable of governing itself or producing anything anyone wants.

The only ones who could make the Democrats look like they're remotely capable of helping this country do what needs to be done are the Republicans. Both parties are appalling and endlessly silly. The Democrats are less corrupt and way smarter, so there's nothing else for it but to support them. But you don't have to like it.

Tom| 7.7.10 @ 7:33PM

You do know we spend more than every nation, excepting Luxemborg, on primary and secondary education per student? Money is not the problem, results are.

Troll Watch| 7.7.10 @ 7:46PM

Teacher's unions are filled with dolts like Nate. That tells you something about what our problem is with education. Nate can no longer tell the difference between corrupt shakedowns and legitimate government spending. He is just a propaganda tool and not a very good one either. We need smarter trolls.

Tom| 7.8.10 @ 11:30AM

Probably so, however one should never avoid the chance to educate someone who believes in falsehoods. Whether he learns or not is up to him.

Crafty Bernardo| 7.7.10 @ 3:26PM

Ken (Old Texican).

You got one thing right... and it's the only thing you've said... repeatedly.

You sure are not capable of fixing stupid.

You've proved that with your repetitive, mindless posts. I don't know how old you are, but maybe isn't it time to put your big boy pants on and stop being negative about your inability to fix your admitted stupidity? Time to maybe do something proactive about it?

ds80| 7.7.10 @ 5:33PM

... scrolls past the adolescent pea-brained nincompoop.

vtwin| 7.7.10 @ 5:14PM

What do you want; he’s conservative, 5% stupidity and 95% regurgitation?

ds80| 7.7.10 @ 5:35PM

and ...
... scrolls past the troll.

Troll Watch| 7.7.10 @ 7:51PM

Regurgitation? This is really funny coming from a troll. Leftists project and you can learn about them from their posts. It is a bit of a waste of time learning about stupid people but with Obama at the helm we have to learn about stupid people.

35| 7.7.10 @ 6:27PM

Excellent piece! Obama must go! It is past time for a competent president! Romney 2012!

James| 7.7.10 @ 7:23PM

Demand can only be boosted by sustainable and growing income from private sector jobs. This can only be achieved by having the government cut taxes on business income and capital gains so as to stimulate private investment in the economy. Gross private domestic investment today stands at the same level that it stood in 1998, down from a high that was achieved right before Obama took office , probably not a coincidence.

As silly as blaming Bush seems to be on the surface, the media knows it works in deflecting some of the blame and confusing the issues, and keeps laying it on.

The prescription for our economic issues are cuts in spending down to a level that would equal about 20% of the pre-recession GDP, and permanent tax cuts at the margin for individuals, businesses, dividends and capital gains.

This is exactly what George Bush did after 9/11 and it worked perfectly ( Bush then blew it on the spending front later on). So let's tell the whole story.

Northern Rebel| 7.7.10 @ 7:46PM

C'mon!

Do you need this article to figure out this leftist-liberal-socialites -progressive- communist's (whatever they are calling themselves this week)

Northern rebel| 7.7.10 @ 7:49PM

Sorry. pushed the wrong button.

They want to end capitailism, and control your financial future. Is this so fuckin' hard to figure out!

If it is we're doomed!

sub| 7.7.10 @ 9:47PM

when will people understand the simple essence of this? barack obama is a delusional narcissist. a highly talented one at that. so when he says things into a microphone, in his deluded alter-world they are true. because HE said them. in his delusion, the simple act of utterance by HIM is sufficient to create truths. there is no other relevant existential or physical analysis; if barack obama enunciates it, it is immediately a physical truth in this universe.

this is the type of sociopath we're dealing with. "the talented mr. obama." g-d help us throw this insane mess.....

ojo grande| 7.7.10 @ 9:52PM

So where do hard working Americans go from here? How do we protect our life savings and assests from this greedy Commie government. If you sell all of your stocks, they tax you for it...what do you do with the money from the stocks? The coming inflation will make it worthless, while the beautiful dream home you built will be worth only what you spent to build it 25 years ago.
You work hard, are frugal, save and hope to leave a nice nestegg for your children (because, they will need it after Obama)...but Obama and his Commie cronies want that too.
Next, they will come for everyones 401K's...that's what Argentina's Commie government did. They told the Argentinians that the economy was so bad, that they needed to take their 401Ks to 'protect' them...and gave them worthless government bonds in their place. My bet is they've already spent all of it...and we're next.
Why can't we get as big a crowd in the Washington DC mall to protest as attended the last July 4th celebration? Are the American people brain dead? When will they wake up to what Obama plans for their future?
Do they have any idea how many more taxes are in their future? I would guess the average taxpayer will soon be in the 50+ catagory when all federal and state taxes are added up.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.8.10 @ 1:23AM

My fellow Americans:

A perspective:

Chisel these facts into your memories - as your very own 'October surprise' remembrance, leading up to November 2, 2010:

February 2007: the Democrat party TOTALLY controls our bicameral Congress - to date!

February 2007: hmmmm, a 4.6% unemployment - BENCHMARK!

February 2007: of note Senator Dudd becomes chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

February 2007: of note Pelosi becomes HR Democrat - ramrod!

February 2007: of note Rangel becomes Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means. He-he.

February 2007: of note Frankfurter becomes House Financial Services Committee Chairman.

How gay for him.

Mental Democrat giants - all!

Yo, yeah, sure, notwithstanding the factual context above - Leftoids and their lactose allies (PEN1) in the LBSM propagandize it's all Bushs' massive paws on Americas' economy that ushered in our status quo creeping economy.

It's 'progressively' turning out to be a Sisyphean effort on the Leftoids' agenda though.

Can't fool all the PEOPLE all the time! Even Rip Van Winkle - woke up at some point!

Fascinatingly: just follow along with this arithmetic - 4.6% to the now flux-massaged 9.5%.

Why - that's a 200% increase in unemployment since the Democrat party took over complete reins of our bicameral Congress! And BTW, don't make me laugh that Bernie and Loserman
are independents.

It's quite apparent the Democrat party and their lactose allies (PEN1) in the LBSM ever hope to yoke America's economic ills on their apple of one’s eye portrayed yokel - Bush.

Yet - who were/are in charge and facilitating the financial CRASH preceding BHOs' enthronement?

Ergo - fittingly, pin the tail on all the donkeys come 11-02-10!

Or alternatively - think of the Democrat party as one big PINATA!

Whack away!

ojo grande| 7.8.10 @ 10:15AM

I think I'll visualizing using a club or machete instead of a stick!

Now Obama wants to tax the American people who work... another 1% on top of all the other taxes he has planned for us..and give it to the losers who don't work and who will vote for him...he's wants to take my tax money as bribe money to use to elect himself...

I've gotten to the point that I no longer like anyone who voted for Obama and continue to support him and his Commie agenda...I've had it.

Kathy| 7.8.10 @ 12:09PM

vtwin, in answer to your question, if the passenger in the crashing car not only doesn't bail but straps himself in at the last moment, I call it suicide.

Duane Smith D.D.S.| 7.8.10 @ 2:10PM

WHY,WHY DON'T WE AWAKE IN THIS COUNTRY. I AM READING A BIOGRAPHY OF DETRICH BONHOEFFER AT PRESENT, AND AM ALMOST HALF WAY (PAGE 250 +). IT IS A TALE OF "TWO CITIES", WITH OUR MODERN HISTORY. I LOVE AMERICA, BUT AM SO DEPRESSED AND FEARFUL WITH OUR PRESENT COURSE.

ONTIME| 7.8.10 @ 2:52PM

We all know the Song of the South and the story of the "Tar Baby", all know about the oily tarry mess being formed in our Gulf and all know of the failures of this Un-Credentialed POTUS put in office by lib marketing.

I believe by now and without racial inference this man should be dubbed the "Tar Baby" since everything bad sticks to this guy.

Steve| 7.8.10 @ 3:40PM

Trying to fit ideological beliefs in with economic reality isn't working. Government money has to be taken from some one else first so it's effect is and will be minimal at best. Alfred E Obama doesn't get that apparently. Obama believers need to get past the denial stage as this guys an idiot at best. You voted for him once which can be chalked up to ignorance. If you vote for him again you're stupid.

John DuBose| 7.8.10 @ 5:43PM

There is no point to trying to look into the motivations of our current president. Just concentrate on the effect of his policies. The effects are bad because modern liberalism simply fails to accurately take human nature into account.

Left wing politicians and policies are set to make a mighty crash. Let them, but do not hate the people or worry about why the liberals do what they do.

ojo grande| 7.8.10 @ 6:22PM

John D.
I wouldn't hate the liberals that are destroying this country...if it was only them that paid for their insanity....but I will be badly hurt along with my grown children and college age grandchildren. I hate the left and I will never forgive them for working to destroy the greatest country ever created on this good earth.

And I will no longer be shut up by the liberal's use of their 'politically correct' intimidation...I'm going to say exactly what I think from here on out ...doesn't everyone here know that we've been brainwashed by the liberal left/Commies for the last 40 years? All to keep us quiet and in our place...and it worked. Look where we are today.

John DuBose| 7.8.10 @ 8:01PM

During the French Revolution, a group of rebels held the king in a jail like situation. Some proposed to " kill the king but spare the man ".
They were basically outvoted and the king along with his mostly innocent family were killed.

Some were afraid that the king would go to a neighboring monarchy, raise an army and try to regain his throne. But most just hated the king.

I think that this barbaric act showed that basic fair stable governance could not expected from the revolutionaries and set the stage for an equally dictatorial but more effective ruler(Napoleon). If those folks had wisdom and self confidence to just fix things and not go for revenge, they might also have avoided the tyrant that followed.

That is why we should spare the man.

This is NOT anything about a physical threat to anyone. But hate is a kind of violence that hurts the hater comparably as much as the hated.

Anyway " What goes around comes around "

ojo grande| 7.9.10 @ 7:53AM

John,
So...now I can't hate the man and administration that wamts to destroy everything I've worked for my entire life? Feel free to go on being a saint...I prefer to vent and then go and vote this commie tyrant out.

And, your take on French history is a hoot! You suggest that if we throw Obama and his commie cronies out that we will end up with something worse? Thanks for my morning's laugh.

Joe Smoe| 7.9.10 @ 8:51AM

obama is dividing the country just like he wants. remember his middle name and all of his relatives are muslim.

Randolph Miller| 7.9.10 @ 12:40PM

You are right about the Democracts, but you can't consider voting for Republicans either. Republicans will cut taxes but they won't cut spending, ballooning the debt. Reagan and both Bushes ran up the debt. It's this debt that will get us in trouble. If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut spending. The only political party that even proposes that is the Libertarian.

Rooster| 7.9.10 @ 11:03PM

Republicans Only cut taxes for the rich, and will cut spending as long as it doesn't have anything to do with thier Wars.

Scott| 7.9.10 @ 11:38PM

tell it Rooster!!!!!!!!

BobSledd| 7.10.10 @ 6:57AM

Really? Bush cut taxes ACROSS the Board.
Let's not use the word "Republican" with the crew currently operating under that banner.
Let's talk about what CONSERVATIVES or LIBERTARIANS think.
They believe in self determination...
That is, have Govt stay out of the way, cut taxes, cut regulation, and let business grow, employ people, create wealth, spread the wealth, become self sufficient and proud of it,and NOT
"re-distribute" from producers,workers,savers,risk takers, to well...None of the above.
By now, it should be clear, watching Euroland socialist/redistribution fail, that tax and spend, tax and borrow....
is a failed system of economic management.
It is anti business, anti-taxpayer, anti-growth.
That mush chould be clear.
Yet, Obamanomics rushes full speed into socialism, taxation, heavy regulation contrary to all that has made our country great..
I reject that.Most of America rejects this.
Well..we survived the complete idiot Jimmy Carter, and that got us Ronald Reagan.
There's surely another Reagan (or 2 or 3 or thousands) out there that will save us from this insanity again.
Over and out.

Greg in Okinawa| 7.11.10 @ 10:34AM

The problem with arguing about the top 1% control X% of the wealth underscores the fundamental problem the lefties make: They assume wealth to be a static quantity, that the rich only have it at the expense of the poor. Not so. Wealth is a dynamic quantity which gets created as a result of productive effort. I think that that basic problem accounts for much of the lefties utter stupidity and moronic policy solutions.