-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
Special Report
Obama Downgraded, Tea Party Vindicated
Mr. Obama achieved the historic downgrading of America’s credit rating the old-fashioned way. He earned it.
President Obama achieved the historic downgrading of America’s credit rating the old-fashioned way. He earned it.
He came into office with federal spending already near an historic peak, with a percent of GDP at 20.7 percent and having increased by one-seventh during the Bush years. One year earlier Bush had joined with then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to enact a pointless Keynesian stimulus package of $168 billion, which the record will show created exactly 0.00 jobs, and stimulated nothing but national debt.
Send In the Clowns
Barack Obama surveyed the continuing wreckage of the financial crisis, and decided to follow the advice of the reknowned economist Otter, “who famously said in ‘Animal House,’ this situation ‘absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part,’” as quoted by Andy Kessler in Monday’s Wall Street Journal.
Barack Obama provided that gesture in the form of the nearly $1 trillion Keynesian stimulus package, which, though five times as big as Bush-Pelosi, still created exactly 0.00 jobs.
But that was just the beginning. President Obama went on to lead the nation to a mercurial increase in federal spending of 28 percent in his first three years alone. Then, after the nation’s voters repudiated these policies with an historic New Deal-sized shellacking in the 2010 elections, President Obama repudiated the voters with his historic proposed 2012 budget in February 2011.
That budget proposed to increase federal spending by another 57 percent by 2021, ensuring that President Obama would increase the national debt by more in just one term in office than all other Presidents in American history combined.
On the course set by that budget, America’s national debt as a percent of GDP is set to smash through the all-time record set during World War II, rocket right on through the level suffered by Greece when it fell into national bankruptcy, and keep right on rocketing into the unchartered stratosphere.
President Obama realized he had fallen behind the political curve when the adult in the room, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, proposed a budget instead that would not only lead to a balanced budget, but would ultimately pay off the national debt, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. And then the Republican-controlled House passed it.
So President Obama did what he does best. He gave a speech. On April 13, he demanded still more tax increases, on top of the sweeping tax increases he already has enacted in current law for 2013, to finance his runaway spending increases. When House Budget Adult Paul Ryan asked the Democrat-appointed CBO Director Doug Ehlmendorf if he had scored President Obama’s April 13 proposals, Ehlmendorf replied in exasperation that the CBO doesn’t score speeches.
For political atmospherics before the 2010 election, the President appointed his own debt commission, with great fanfare. When the commission reported a debt and deficit reduction plan in December after the election that rightly proposed to cut spending and tax rates, with tax reform, the President ignored it and took no steps to implement any of its recommendations. Instead he proposed the public policy malpractice 2012 budget discussed above, which kicked the proposals of his own commission to the curb.
When Tea Party Republicans tried to impose some spending
discipline on Obama in the debt limit fight, President Obama laid
on the negotiating table all of $2 billion in spending cuts, which
is the equivalent of cutting one penny out of every $20 in federal
spending. So all year long leading up to the credit downgrade
(despite record setting federal spending, deficits and debt)
President Obama effectively refused to cut spending at all,
proposing instead still more tax increases, on the road to doubling
federal taxes and spending relative to the economy.
Tea Party to the Rescue
The Tea Party-dominated Republican House majority already acted in the spring to completely solve the debt crisis by passing the Ryan budget, with $6.2 trillion in cuts in the first ten years alone. Despite President Obama’s unreasoned rhetoric, that budget was carefully crafted so no one would actually suffer as a result of those cuts. Sure some people would lose government windfalls and those who are able, in time, would have to pay for more themselves. But that is exactly what we need right now.
If Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration had acted to implement that Ryan budget, then there would have been no debt downgrade. But instead they responded with unreasoned derision, running an ad that showed Ryan throwing an elderly woman over a cliff, even though his reforms would not apply to anyone over 55 today. That ad itself contributed to last Friday’s debt downgrade, showing Washington unreasoned and unwilling to address the problem.
Then during the debt limit debate in July, the Tea Party-dominated Republican House acted to completely solve the debt crisis yet again, passing the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011. It cut government spending for fiscal year 2012 (which starts on October 1, 2011) by $111 billion — a modest, reasonable slice of Obama’s projected spending of $3,729 billion ($3.7 trillion). It also adopted a cap on total federal spending that would reduce it to the long run, postwar, historical average of 20 percent of GDP by 2017.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (144) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/10/obama-downgraded
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
The Bishop| 8.10.11 @ 7:08AM
Obama fatigue is now epidemic. Whenever I hear his voice, even in a public service commercial, I want to vomit. Last week I was listening to WLS-AM in Chicago and heard a traffic report being sponsored, in part, by the Department of Health and Human Services. What? This administration is an abomination and like a steroid to my gag reflex.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 8:40AM
The very name 'Tea Party' is silly, it is from grade skool history.
You are not conservatives, you are cornballs. Why not get more parties into the action?:
how about a 'Betsy Ross Party'?
a Paul Revere Party?
a 'Lewis and Clark Party'?
a 'Washington Crossing the River Party'?
a 'Nixon Getting a Pardon Party'?
Petronius| 8.10.11 @ 8:43AM
Alan
Your party met it's demise a century and a half ago. They were called the Know-nothings.
JimH| 8.10.11 @ 9:22AM
While your retort to Alan may be semanticaly spot on regarding his ideas, many who post on this site would feel right at home in the KN party. Wikipedia link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
Petronius| 8.10.11 @ 12:30PM
J
I only wish the poor guy would graduate kindergarten. Life is competition. And if he loses because his response is passivity and failure to understand that engagement is required, it's not the fault of anybody else.
SpiralArchitect| 8.10.11 @ 1:48PM
"But don't expect the Obama Administration { & Alan Brooks } to understand any of this. "
Heya Alan 'Straw man' Brooks, what grade school teaches about the events & people you have cited, especially the Tea Party?
The fact that you can neither link the cause to the event nor understand the rationale of the name is of no surprise to me.
wally| 8.10.11 @ 9:11AM
Alan-
Take a Midol and go lay down for awhile.
Clint| 8.10.11 @ 9:52AM
Duuuuuhhhh !
ObamaBoy Brooks Is A Negative Attention Craving Buffoon.
T.E.A.
Taxed Enough Already.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Brooks' Face
Wipe Your Feet.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:37AM
"The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Brooks' Face"
Oh, Clinty, you are Rough Trade; why it gets a guy all in a dither.
Clint| 8.10.11 @ 10:44AM
Uh Oh !
ObamaBoy Brooks Got His Knickers In A Twist.
Go Feed The Squirrels In The Park.
Melvin| 8.10.11 @ 10:20AM
Point being?
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:38AM
stop the Corn.
Clint| 8.10.11 @ 10:46AM
Stop Your Negative Attention Craving Shuck & Jive, ObamaBoy Brooks.
Mike 3/505| 8.10.11 @ 11:02AM
Clint,
Ignore him. That will drive him bonkers.
Regards,
Mike
Jeff Lee| 8.10.11 @ 2:13PM
People are reacting to the shambolic wreck made of government by the communist party. Obsessing about the name is almost as productive as getting nutritional tips from dear leader's wife.
Grzmlyk| 8.10.11 @ 2:50PM
Yawn.
tj| 8.10.11 @ 3:32PM
what a child!
C.K. Amos| 8.10.11 @ 7:24PM
To all of you who respond to Mr. Brooks: Cease fire! He's a tar baby that deserves no response.
The emptiness of his words and nonsense of his logic -- as well as the contentious bent of his posts -- speak loudly by themselves.
Superbowl 14| 8.10.11 @ 7:57PM
Amen CK. brooks is probably a member of the moocher class who would say anything to keep the cash coming and avoid working.
Ground Control| 8.10.11 @ 7:33PM
Of course we already have the Democrat Party, also known as the "Bankruptcy Party," the "Corruption Party," and the "buy-my-vote Party."
Deborah D | 8.11.11 @ 4:15PM
How about the "Downgrade Party" or the "Double D" Party aka Democratic Downgrade Party.
Timothy L. Pennell| 8.10.11 @ 9:14AM
Ruth Marcus, in the Washington Post, is all but ORGASMIC, today. It seems, she's gotten wind that, the President, HIMSELF, is about to put out his own DETAILED PLAN, that will solve everything, put us back on track, and show the world that we're still AAA.
Unfortunately for RUTH, the last time President Golf Outing put out a "PLAN" it was VOTED DOWN 98-0.
He couldn't even get a Democrat to vote for it.
Ruth Marcus needs to get some help.
Liberalism is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Get help, Ruth, before you end up with a Show on MSNBC.
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 1:36AM
I, for one, will not hold my breath waiting for zero to come up with a detailed plan.
pineapple| 8.10.11 @ 10:13AM
It is now evident to me that obamarrhea is more widespread than suspected. Next comes the trip to the bathroom after seeing this obamination's picture.
Deborah D | 8.10.11 @ 7:16AM
Thanks for this, Mr. Ferrara. I get so tired of the John McCains of the Republican Party. Those darned "terrorist" Tea Partiers! Those "Hobbits." How dare they try to rein in Obama and his spending spree. The Republicans and the Tea Partiers need to make sure they have some kind of a PR truth-telling ad or two to combat this "terrorist" meme. Truth be told most involved in the Tea Party are the silent-no-more majority of down to Earth, taxpaying, hard-working Americans who want to preserve this country and its freedoms for their children and their children's children. God bless them, and if this is radical then I'll wear that label proudly.
chuck| 8.10.11 @ 7:48AM
McCain is a bitter old man, and a fool. Unfortunately, he was just reelected. Why doesn't the bastard just become a Democrat? He sure seems to enjoy that side of the isle.
Mike D.| 8.10.11 @ 8:16AM
McCain and John Dingle are poster boys for term limits, nothing more or less. One senile and one walking cadaver.
emilio lizardo, PhD| 8.10.11 @ 8:38AM
you are absolutely right, but you are going to catch hell from some with the stale criticisms of how dare you attack a war hero, years of service to the country, yada yada yada. The entirety of the Republican old guard are just as reprehensible as their brethren on the other side of the aisle
chuck| 8.10.11 @ 10:26AM
Term limits!
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 8:42AM
And you fools voted for McCain.
al| 8.10.11 @ 8:58AM
you mean the lesser of two fools?
chuck| 8.10.11 @ 10:23AM
Better the fool you know!
Melvin| 8.10.11 @ 10:24AM
The Democrats and the media are the ones who put the, "Maverick," McCain on the Republican ticket.
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 1:39AM
WINNER!! This is the same kind of thing we absolutely must avoid in 2012. The Demonrats and the media would like nothing better than to have Romney as the Republican candidate in the next election.
Drunken Sailor| 8.10.11 @ 2:52PM
Alan,
I have asked you this question many times and am still waiting on a answer. I will ask it again and again until you answer and show your true colors.
Answer the question, do you want a conservative, a liberal or even a libertarian? What kind of candidate do you want the Republicans to run that will keep you from voting for Obama? Answer the simple question or add professional sh*t disturber to your resume.
ds80| 8.10.11 @ 9:16PM
Alan has the acumen of an 8th grader and can't converse, reason, or debate with adults.
TomB| 8.10.11 @ 4:07PM
Bilbo akhbar!
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 1:40AM
Hoorah! I'm trying to find a tee shirt with a picture of an armored-up hobbit to wear. No joy yet.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.10.11 @ 7:18AM
Obama has not put forth even one sound economic plan. Not even one. His only plans are formulated by agents of evil at the EPA. Here's a perfect example of why America is in trouble, more central planning:
http://www.journal-news.com/ne.....26509.html
The Obama administration on Tuesday said combination tractors — known as big-rigs or semi-trucks — will be required to achieve up to a 20 percent cut in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018. The rules are part of the administration’s broader effort to achieve two goals: reduce U.S. dependence on oil and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Experts say there will likely be some up-front costs in the form of higher truck prices, which are currently around $150,000. But, over time, administration officials said the rules will save $50 billion in fuel costs and a projected 530 million barrels of oil.
“What you’ve got here is a trade off,” said James Brock, professor of economics at Miami University. “It’s going to cost more to raise fuel efficiency of big vehicles, but in return you get better mileage and pay for less fuel.”
These new fuel efficiency standards will spark even more debate between government and industry officials, Brock said.
“If forced to buy new equipment, owner/operators will be out of business,” said Dave Duncan, owner of JD Dispatch in Middletown.
Deborah D | 8.10.11 @ 7:30AM
Not only does the EPA want us freezing to death in the dark, apparently they want us starving while we're freezing (or in Texas' case, sweltering). They don't just want to control what goes in your tank, they want to control those who plow our fields and bring our food to market. Please, Republicans, rein in this EPA beast...now!
Pat Spooner| 8.10.11 @ 12:48PM
And the EPA is acting unilaterally with no legislation requiring this or supporting what they are attempting to do.
chuck| 8.10.11 @ 7:50AM
Ever get the feeling that the country is becoming a powder keg?
Old Soldier| 8.10.11 @ 7:59AM
Yes - And I'm not just talking about the stuff I've been stockpiling.
Pecos Pete| 8.10.11 @ 8:47AM
Subtle, but cute. Your comment is way too intelligent for Alan Brooks (purpleguy, etc...?) to understand.
Mike D.| 8.10.11 @ 8:11AM
A simple answer to that question, YEP.
WRTolkas| 8.10.11 @ 8:11AM
Yes, I've got my big garden, 50 lbs of black-powder, lots of ammo, about a years worth of food and water, and an attitude.
Conservative View| 8.10.11 @ 9:30AM
Unfortunatly chuck, all too often.
Frekki| 8.10.11 @ 7:53AM
You cannot legislate technological improvements. If the auto and truck manufacturers had the ability to give us the vehicles we want, and the fuel mileage they demand, we would already have it on the showroom floor. Get ready to drive a two seater cardboard box with a range of 40 miles. Or vote them out, your choice.
Go read the lefty press; It's still Bush's fault.
martin j smith| 8.10.11 @ 8:06AM
The Tea Party is the alternative oppositon force. The Republican establishment is and continues to fail in going out front and giving more assertive opposition such as right after Obamas's great speech about our down grade. We should have heard this: President Obama dismissed our plan which would have prevented a down grade etc.
But these Republcians agreed to another disaster plan "compromise" so they too are guilty to some extent.
Mimi| 8.10.11 @ 8:10AM
Peter....Thanks for the collection of truthful FACTS of recent history....This article deserves to be on PAGE ONE of every newspaper in the country, to let us all know of WHY we endure a credit downgrade, who the culprits are that caused this disgrace and WHO tried their darndest to prevent it!
It looks to me NOW, that our fate is in the hands of the UNITED STATES SENATE....To unkill Cut, Cap & Balance and Pass it overwhelmingly, and to also Pass the House , Paul Ryan, BUDGET,
What can we do? Get on the phone and call all the members of the SENATE...let your voice be heard. Talk about "MARKET" ? Watch it soar after these 2 bills are passed! There is a clear path to get this economy going....as far as "revenue" increases recall the words of CALVIN COOLIDGE " The less money for Government, The more money for the PEOPLE"
POST American| 8.10.11 @ 8:19AM
--Putting aside the now all but complete
Globalist FAKE OUT co-opting of the
'Tea Party' ----let's take a deep breath
to consider the looming prospects for
a TRUE righteous force from the grassroots
---the 'American Party'.
AS Rockefeller-Rot-child is FAST realizing
their geek agenda for world government
and MASS EUGENICS's been spotted
---we'd say it's time.
-----------------------HIGH TIME------------------------
Bill| 8.10.11 @ 5:41PM
Well, of course it could be seen a mile away that the stock market debacle would lead directly and as a matter of course to MASS EUGENICS.
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 1:45AM
Don't feed the troll.
Pecos Pete| 8.10.11 @ 9:06AM
Sen. Kerry will be appointed to the Super Committee by Sen. Reid. Wow! A big surprise.
Result: The Super Committee will be as dysfunctional as anything we have ever seen. With war hero Kerry on the committee we can expect some rather extraordinary events.
Should be fun. /sarc
Petronius| 8.10.11 @ 12:50PM
I was expecting Bernie Sanders, but he doesn't sound bite worth a turd. He couldn't pick Schumer, who is too high on the beltway food chain. Durbin is too pathetic. Byrd's corpse is more desirable by half. Harkin looks and sounds like he's been constipated for over a decade. We could at least stand Mary Landrieu for a time unlike BB or Lady DiFi, which is how Patty made the cut. Mr Haughty is his own reward.
Pat Spooner| 8.10.11 @ 12:52PM
These demoncrats of the Senate propose three multi-millionaires (actually the Elite members of the demoncrat party). Since Senator Reid appointed John (I'm not paying no stinking Sales Tax on my Sailboat) Kerry, he should also have somehow appointed Tim (I use TurboTax) Geithner to the committee.
jmulcahy| 8.10.11 @ 11:30PM
Pat,
It's not a sailboat; it's a yacht. A big one. Senator Gigolo F. Kerry has to have the best.
J.
The Bishop| 8.10.11 @ 2:16PM
So, 1/12th of this super committee holding the fiscal future of the country in their hand is the nut-case from Washington State who praised Osama bin Laden in 2002 for his humanitarian work? Isn't that sweet?
tsd| 8.10.11 @ 5:02PM
John Kerry, king of the clueless liberal elitist turds who are running this country into the ground, as they sit on they're high horse eating caviar and drinking champagne. Boy are we lucky to have him.
Steve A| 8.10.11 @ 9:30AM
Let's take a quick look at Obama's "accomplishments" thus far:
Shamed into meeting with McCrystal on Afghanistan.
Adds troops to Afghanistan.
Keeps GITMO open against pledge to close.
Blasts Arizona Immigration law.
Cash for clunkers.
Stimulus.
Pay czars.
Fails to meet BP CEO on oil spill.
Obamacare debacle.
Beer summit.
Golf.
Vacations.
USA Credit downgrade.
Unemployment 9 + %
Fuel prices double.
Bank bailouts.
Wall Street bailouts.
QE1
QE2
Raise taxes on smokes.
Dem Congress proposes no budget.
Obama budget voted down 97-0.
Blames: Oil companies, Hedge fund Mgrs., Insurance Companies, Wall Street fat cats, Tea Party, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Arab Spring, Europe, Republicans, Anyone making 200K or more, Fox, Wal Mart, Bush, Cambridge police, Arizona & Sara Palin.
The curtain will close on this sad chapter in American history after the next election, thankfully.
Mike 3/505| 8.10.11 @ 11:04AM
Don't forget, more golf.
Pecos Pete| 8.10.11 @ 11:37AM
And basketball.
And beer summit.
ds80| 8.10.11 @ 9:18PM
... and eating his peas.
J.C.Eaton| 8.11.11 @ 12:12AM
And appointing one miserable self confessed commie, tax cheat, or otherwise morally repellant chucklehead after another.
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 1:47AM
Hopefully.
David W| 8.10.11 @ 9:39AM
Can someone dare ask Obama why has he not just opened his checkbook and written a check for half his net worth to help the poor? Or why he didn't tell his tax preparer to avoid taking advantage of the tax breaks in the code? Had he done that he would have, as I read, paid over $100,000 more in taxes. But he didn't. The reason is he, and W Buffet and G Soros and all of the Democratic/Hollywood elite don't want to (can we forget how John Kerry parked his yacht in a different state to avoid paying taxes)?
PolishKnight| 8.10.11 @ 9:48AM
One of the classic CYA statements I hear from leftists is that the evil Republicans are "setting them up" to fail. This is because they sub-consciously know their policies are unlikely to succeed. I think they were surprised more than anyone that Clinton's administration didn't take the whole country down (Clinton was saved by his own perj7ery and had to kill his healthcare plan and free daycare agenda in order to stay in office.)
No such guardian angel for Barack.
I'm reminded of the cigarette companies that raised prices on stink sticks just before tax increases to pre-empt the increase. If consumers are going to pay more, why shouldn't they profit? So GW spent a ton of stimulus money (for the time) giving Obama "infinity and beyond" to aspire to. In order for Obama to outspend Bush, he had to take us into galactic budgetary numbers. The big Ts.
Now, Obama has nowhere left to go. He's out of gas literally and figuratively.
Von Mises Jr.| 8.10.11 @ 9:50AM
The TEA Party downgrade mantra is nonsense. Mr. Ferrara makes this clear.
The TEA Party wanted "REAL" and "IMMEDIATE" spending cuts, and the GOP caved (save half the Freshmen and the likes of Bachmann and Paul.
So it is illogical to blame the TEA Party for the downgrade when the GOP did not follow their advice. S&P clearly stated it was due to lack of spending cuts that we were downgraded. And the Democrats own that by holding the GOP hostage to the blame, and the RINO's for caving.
fmm| 8.10.11 @ 10:05AM
Excellent article detailing actual facts actions and who is responsible for what in this financial mess. But who in the popular culture will know anything about this? Though the Republican house has done some groundbreaking work to try to solve our financial issues, they need to go further than just passing bills. They need to get in the advertising game in a big way to out shout the liberal press and educate the masses as to the truth. That is the only way to hold the dems to scrutiny and to counter the fact that polls show the public is less satisfied with how the repubs handled the debt ceiling than the administration. It is not too late to re-submit Ryan's budget and Cut, Cap, And Balance but it must be with a barrage of advertising in every corner of this nation. Slick ads and consistent talking points on the "less-than-totally-liberal "news outlets are a must. It is past time to use the liberal methods on the liberals. Wish I had the resources.
Mimi| 8.10.11 @ 2:33PM
What a FANTASTIC IDEA.... I swear if the Republican Party Big wigs spend some MONEY on this...I may once again get back on the contribution list. Note to some big spenders...This is a great cause to sponsor with some BIG help!...fmm GREAT POST !
George Collins| 8.10.11 @ 11:14AM
As the Obama Presidency is effectively over, there remains large sums of money on the table to back the next Democrat Presidential candidate. Who is in the wings right now? I seriously doubt that Obama will run so who will it be?
Skippy| 8.10.11 @ 7:29PM
He will run.
Giving us the opportunity to run...him out of town.
George True| 8.10.11 @ 11:32AM
It is interesting to note that so far there is a thundering silence from the leftist trolls who usually come here to disrupt the exchange of ideas - knock on wood. (Alan Brooks doesn't count because mostly what he says is incoherent or off-topic.)
Mr Ferrara laid out a timeline of who said what and who did what that is indisputable. It is like having a court stenographer read back exactly what was said by whom and when. When the johnny-come-lately trolls do show up after they get up at noon, no matter how they may try to dissemble and deny the known facts, just tell them to go back, READ THE ARTICLE, and state which part is factually inaccurate or untrue. They wont be able to. Because everything Mr Ferrara said is also in the congressional record for anyone who cares to look it up.
In the days and weeks to come, as the left tries desperately to shift the blame of their folly to the tea party, I would encourage everyone to print this article and use it to expose their lies. Also email it to your congressman and senator and suggest that they read and study it prior to any interviews with media talking heads.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 11:46AM
Here's an inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007. He uses that to show how unfairly taxed the top 1% of earners are. But what he knowingly omits is any other form of tax. When you local at total taxes collected and compare it to income earned, you see that in 2008 the top 1% of income earners took in roughly 22% of the income earned in America. They paid 23% of the total taxes collected. Does that strike you as being terribly unfair? This data is freely available. I wonder why Mr. Ferrara only focused on federal income tax?
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 11:49AM
After all, as the tax foundation notes ". . .federal individual income tax is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes)."
So yes, if you look only at the most progressive tax paid, it will seem the rich are paying a disproportionate share of taxes. Unfortunately, ignoring 75% of the taxes people gives you a very incomplete picture.
George True| 8.10.11 @ 12:56PM
The figure mentioned by Mr Ferrara is accurate. All of the other factoids you mentioned are nothing more than a distinction without a difference.
In fact, the so-called "rich" actually pay way, way more than their fair share. If the tax rates were, say, 10% across all income brackets, that would actually be eminently fair. (With personal exemptions for those near the bottom so they pay little if anything.)
Think of it. If you make $30,000 a year, with the exemptions, you pay nothing. If you make $300,000 a year, you pay $30,000. If you make $3,000,000 a year, you pay $300,000. Now THAT would be absolutely fair.
You wouldn't be able to say the $3.5 million dollar a year earner wasn't paying his fair share. He would be paying ten times more than the $300K a year earner, and a hundred times more than the $30K a year earner (who wouldn't actually be paying any taxes). How could anything be more fair than that?
Only a Communist would object to it.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 1:32PM
So George, you think it's unfair for those earning 22% of the country's income to pay 23% of the tax burden. Can you tell me why? How is that way, way more than their fair share?
George True| 8.10.11 @ 1:52PM
Our government has no right to confiscate one-third to one-half of what somebody makes. It doesn't matter how much money somebody makes, when government takes that much of it at gunpoint, it is theft, plain and simple. It belongs to the person who made the money. It does not belong to the government.
And yes, if those earning 22% of the money are paying 23% of the tax burden, then they are overpaying by one percent. Fair is fair.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 1:59PM
Okay, so it's unfair. By 1%. But according to you they're paying 'way, way' more than their fair share. If you use Mr. Ferrara's misleading numbers, then you'd have a point. But in reality you're grossly exaggerating. Which is why it's important to use accurate numbers.
The government doesn't take income by theft. The taxes we have are levied by the people's elected representatives. If you don't like it, get some different people elected or move to a country with much lower taxes (good luck finding one).
George True| 8.10.11 @ 2:34PM
A civics lecture coming from a lefty. That's rich.
So you are apparently acknowledging that "the rich" are currently paying within 1% of their fair share. So why then would it be necessary or advisable or "fair" to raise their taxes even further??? You can't have it both ways.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 3:03PM
Can you admit that you were overstating the tax burden on the top 1% of earners in America? Do you still think Mr. Ferrara was accurate when he used only federal income tax to show that 'the rich' were paying so much more than their 'fair share'?
I'll get to your questions when you answer that.
ds80| 8.10.11 @ 9:22PM
... waiting for George to suggest raising taxes on those who pay ZERO taxes at all, in the name of fairness.
...
Mimi| 8.10.11 @ 2:44PM
Eventually if you confiscated every last penny of the PEOPLE you would want more, cause you never have enough! IT IS THE SPENDING that is the cause of it ALL....NOT ALL NECESSARY. NEEDED and also WASTEFUL !!!
George True| 8.10.11 @ 2:52PM
Dred, you still haven't said why the 10% across the board scenario I outlined earlier wouldn't be fair for everybody.
VBMax| 8.10.11 @ 3:04PM
This thread has only looked at the percentages that are considered to be "fair" ignoring the tremedous waste of our tax dollars in programs and projects too numerous to list here. What's "fair" about that no matter the amount?
I'm tired of our hard-earned dollars going for turtle tunnels and the rest of the crap this government is bankrolling.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 3:58PM
Much lower taxes---try Australia.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 3:57PM
DRed,
that's not the way it works. Upper income earners pay close to 70% of taxes, and considerably more than the percentage they earn. In addition, the Plutocratic Democrats like Buffet and Kerry have already earned their mooney (or married it) and pay little to nothing on their total wealth as a percentage.
Quite frankly, almost all Government spending outside of Defense/Defense pensions and ancillaries is bogus. It can and should be cut.
We are facing the destruction of our country---no joke. And when we retrench on defense spending and role, as extremists on the Libetarian front want to do, that will leave the power vacuum open for the Chinese and the Islamists---either way will be a very very ugly world. Ron Paul is also a blithering nincompoop.
We need to cut entitlements to protect our country's defense, and stop our enemies painfully (to them) and quickly.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 4:24PM
Where are you getting your statistics from, Occam?
skip| 8.11.11 @ 11:48AM
I can't take it any more. Time to set the record straight.
It is ironic you are now using the Tax Foundation as a source, the same Tax Foundation I have used to bludgeon you with your own stupidity on numerous occasions when you would spout lies about tax policy. That is an improvement on your part, at least.
The Tax Foundation chart is easy to understand. Apparently, however, just not to a liberal. Go figure. Who could ever predict such a thing.
In 2008 the top 1% earned 20.00% of the nation's total adjusted gross income.
In 2008 the top 1% paid 38.02% of the nation's income taxes, not 23.27%, dumb ass.
I have repeatedly bludgeoned you with the fact that the top 1% paid more in income taxes than the bottom 95% COMBINED in 2007 to drive home the fact tax policy is criminally unfair, in addition to crippling job growth.
Thanks to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and liberal Keynesian economic policy run amok, this is no longer the case. The top 1% paid 38.02% of income taxes compared to the bottom 95% who paid 41.28% of income taxes in 2008. I expect the bottom 95%'s share to increase in 2009 over 2008, in 2010 over 2009, and in 2011 over 2010, when these numbers are published, due to the stupidity of liberal economics, which force the 'rich' to circle their wagons in the face of the liberal stupidity onslaught against them. Taxes paid are going in the opposite direction you want them to because liberal economic policy is that stupid, as are you who doesn't even know this until I'm telling you right now.
You owe Ferrara an apology. He stated in 2007 the top 1% paid 40.4% of income taxes because, try to follow me here, the top 1% paid 40.4% of income taxes in 2007.
In 2007 the top 1% paid 40.42% of the nation's income taxes, while the bottom 95% paid 39.37% of income taxes, which is exactly the reason I repeatedly used that statistic to bludgeon you with your own stupidity.
And, you might want to tone down on the 'other forms of tax' mantra you are on. Apples and oranges. Taxes on comsumption are inherently fair. You only pay tax on what you purchase. You are not required to purchase. Until Obamacare came along, that is. Income tax policy is inherently unfair in addition to crippling job growth and unconstitutionally coercing unequality under the law.
Idiot.
skip| 8.11.11 @ 11:58AM
Income tax revenue in 2007 was $1,115,504,000,000.
Total federal revenue in 2007 was $2,567,985,000,000.
Income tax was 43.44% of taxes collected. Not your stated 'about 25%'.
Also, stop bashing Bush's tax cuts.
In 2003 federal revenue was $1,782,314,000,000.
In 2007 federal revenue was $2,567,985,000,000.
That is an INCREASE of 44.08%. In just four years.
Idiot.
DRed| 8.11.11 @ 1:22PM
"federal individual income tax is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government)"
See those words in the parentheses? You left out state and local taxes. Nice try, skippy. Brilliant work setting the record straight. You do such a nice job of making yourself look like a moron.
ps
I didn't say anything about the Bush tax cuts. I'm glad you to see you really like repeating those numbers, though. It's cute when you try to reason.
skip| 8.11.11 @ 2:13PM
More apples and oranges. State and local taxes vary. That is why I focused on federal income taxes, knowing you included state local taxes, because federal taxes apply to everyone regardless of state and locality. Oh, that, and the chart you cited, at the Tax Foundation, the chart that is titled:
'Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data'
Note no mention is made of state and local in the title.
Moron.
See these words in parentheses?
"Here's an inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007."
Those two sentences are the very first two sentences you started off with.
The Tax Foundation you cite states in 2007 the top 1% paid 40.42%, as I've already explaned.
Imbecile.
I didn't imply you mentioned Bush tax cuts in this thread. However, in many threads you have repeated over and over the need for the rich to pay more in taxes, and how much the economy has been hurt by the Bush tax cuts.
A four year increase of tax revenue, under Bush as president, after his tax cuts, of over 44%, is the epitome of 'reason'.
Simpleton.
That you had the audacity to reply after I effortlessly humiliated you, badly, yet again, shows the mindset of a liberal, any liberal.
Idiot.
DRed| 8.11.11 @ 3:18PM
Your last paragraph made me laugh audibly. Bravo, skippy, bravo.
I know that tax foundation chart doesn't mention state or local taxes in the title. Or in the chart. But so what? I wasn't talking about federal income tax alone. I'm saying that when you consider the entire tax burden paid by rich Americans you find they don't pay a disproportionately high share of taxes. The fact that the federal income tax is progressive is balanced by the presence of other more regressive taxes.
See these words in parentheses?
"Here's an inaccurate part. Mr. Ferrara states that the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2007."
"" are quotation marks. () are parentheses.
skip| 8.11.11 @ 3:53PM
Oops. You got me on the parentheses.
That, obviously, negates all your stupid lies, such as your claim about the inaccuracy Ferrara stated - that was in fact the truth; on what you claim tax policy should be - that would in fact make the economy worse; on the effects of Bush's tax cuts that you claim did so much damage to the economy - when in fact the tax cuts saw over a 44% increase in federal revenue from '03 to '07 and did not hurt the economy in any way; and your statement, in your most recent reply, where you once again claim the entire tax burden paid by the rich isn't a disproportionately high share of taxes - when in fact we've already established that the top 1% paid more in federal income taxes than ("the bottom 95% combined") in 2007 - note the quotation marks, inside parentheses, intended to punctuate the fact that the top 1% of income earners PAID MORE THAN THE BOTTOM 95% COMBINED - that according to you does not qualify as disproportionate, and that in fact the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes in 2008 - leaving a blatantly ("disproportionate") 61.98% that the other 99% paid, unfairly, making a mockery of the basic premise of the Constitution, that is that everyone is equal under the law.
Liberals. You can't kill them. Until the economy collapses and all hell breaks loose, that is.
PolishKnight| 8.10.11 @ 2:41PM
The fundamental problem with all income tax reform, including the flat tax, is DEFINING income and all the exemptions. So now the "flat tax" isn't so flat after all with a bottom exemption. Ready for me to shoot you down?
The original income tax after the Constitutional Amendment was a flat tax with the exemption being massively high and the percentage low. After that, it got messy.
Do we eliminate deductions for medical expenses? What if someone "smurfs" their income into several corporations of, say, oh $30K each?
The wealthy pay a lot in taxes but it's tempered by them being able to afford excellent legal representation and lobbying. The attorneys get paid massive amounts to defend clients who like paying less and these same attorneys help write those same laws (hello Bill Gates Sr!)
It's all a big scam.
A fairer and more manageable tax is on PROPERTY. If you're worth 10 billion, pay the same "flat" tax as someone with a shed and a horse. No need for deductions. If you sold the shed to pay medical bills, then you don't pay any taxes on it. It helps to encourage income since there is no more income tax.
What's the justification? Well, the state protects property, not income, from theft so a certain percentage is a, er, protection fee. :-) Seriously though, the government will come after me if I print up DVD's of MSWindows7. Shouldn't Bill Gates pay a percentage of that intellectual value for the police to do their job?
Only problem is where property is massively valued in relation to income such as family farms. Someone with a million dollar farm produces $50K in food. A 1% property tax would severely burn him ($10K a year).
Pecos Pete| 8.10.11 @ 4:08PM
Why not a simple single-rate consumption tax? Spend a dollar and pay the tax at that point. Thus, no valuation complexities. Exempt the REALLY poor.
You can bet that Gates/Buffet/etc spend a lot more than 99% of the rest of us.
George S| 8.10.11 @ 1:55PM
Instead of criticizing and engaging in number manipulation and word games, why not come out and get to the point:
What should the marginal tax rates be? How much of a persons income belongs to the government? What should the corporate tax rate be?
Answer those two questions first, then we can discuss the details as to how much revenue that will go to the Treasury and... compare it to the amount of money the federal government spends in one day, 10 billion dollars.
Ten billion a day. Wal Mart's net profit last year was 15 billion. For the year. That won't even run our government for TWO DAYS. So once again... how much money do we need to confiscate to balance our budget???
Conservative View| 8.10.11 @ 4:57PM
DRed:
I fear your figures and thinking leave out a great deal. Let me explain.
Mister Jones is rich. He makes over a million a year. He gets his money from the buisness he built up. Now, lets look at the taxes that Mister Jones's buisness, his buisness, the one he built, brings in.
The raw materials to build his widgets is taxes.
The shipping of that raw material to build widgets is taxed
The factory building to build the widgets is taxed.
The factory equiptment that make the widgets is taxed.
The worker making the widget is taxed.
The finished widget is taxed.
Shipping the finished widget is taxed.
The whole sale warehouseing is taxed.
The shipping from the warehouse to the outlet store is taxed.
The widget when sold to the consumer is taxed.
Just how much in taxes do you want Mr. Jones to bring to America's coffers? It is his buisness that makes for all this tax money.
I fear you look too hard at the egg, and not hard enough at the goose. The goose needs to be fed, cared for, and if you will pampered a little. Not killed off and served for Christmas dinner. You want a bigger egg. I want a safer goose. Whose plan do you suppose will best insure a nation?
Slacker| 8.10.11 @ 12:00PM
When polite folks finally acknowledge that BO is our first affirmative action President, then we will know he is done. Unfortunately, a majority will never come to terms with this because it would turn their worldview upside down. Expect a second (and much worse) term.
Kingofthenet| 8.10.11 @ 12:45PM
Here is my simple question for you Conservatives, When 'Your' guy gets to be President in say 2020, and He/She doesn't walk on water or turn the US Economy into a MONSTER, what than? Will You say:
A. He/She wasn't a REAL Conservative
B. It takes a long time to clean up Democratic Marxist damage?
C. There isn't a 'Super' Majority in BOTH Houses so the great President is stymied?
Or some NEW novel excuse?
Drunken Sailor| 8.10.11 @ 2:58PM
Nope, Even though your prediction is off by two election cycles, we will just do the same thing your guy is doing and blame the previous president. If you can do it why can't we?
Conservative View| 8.10.11 @ 5:00PM
Wait a second here. Haven't we heard all this before? Oh yes, that's exactly what the liberals are saying for Obama.
ds80| 8.10.11 @ 9:26PM
Strawman, KOTN.
And your "divide America first" agenda is showing when you say, "Your guy."
Oldefarte| 8.10.11 @ 1:28PM
For the thousandth time, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! Always has been, always will be. Why, because it the party of DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, that's why. As to the Democrats' blaming the tea party, see Rand Paul's excellent counter-argument to that BS:
'......Sen. Paul Calls for Geithner No-Confidence Vote Wednesday, August 10, 2011 04:18 AMBy: Hiram Reisner. Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday he will introduce legislation in the Senate today calling for the resignation of Timothy Geithner, who many call the architect of President Barack Obama’s economic policies. The Kentucky Republican told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Obama’s only chance to salvage his presidency is to replace the treasury secretary.Paul also said blaming the tea party for the nation’s fiscal quagmire “would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.”“Blaming the tea party is sort of like blaming the fireman when he comes to put out the fire — you know, a lot of us were elected to go to Washington to put out the fire, to handle the debt, to do something about the debt — that’s why we went to Washington —that’s why we ran for office,” Paul said. “Now they are going to blame the debt on us — when we came to Washington to try to fix the mess that they’ve got us in. It is really ludicrous on the face of it. But I think it is an example of . . . really the failure of leadership that [Obama] will not accept responsibility — I think we are getting to the point where he’s going to have a failed presidency.”Paul said the “tea party is a minority of the minority party” and in that capacity cannot control congressional votes, adding it was the Democrats who had foiled Obama’s budget in the Senate. “When the president’s budget was produced, every Democrat in the Senate voted against it. I mean . . . the economy is in death throes right now and he can’t accept any blame or responsibility for it,” he said. “I’m going to introduce legislation tomorrow that will call for the resignation of Timothy Geithner — it will be a vote of no confidence. And I think really, his only chance to turn his presidency around is to get somebody to replace Timothy Geithner, who’s failed.”Paul also said Congress must concentrate on entitlement reform and raise the age of those eligible to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, because the nation’s population is aging as people are living longer .“You can fix those problems by gradually raising the age and changing the way we do the entitlements,” he said. “But if you wait 5 years or 10 years, then there is going to be an abrupt end, and that is what is happening in Europe when you have these austere measures where people don’t get their checks — that’s when there is rioting in the streets. But the way you avoid that is by fixing the entitlement programs now and doing it gradually.”....'
PS to AB: yeah, I voted for Republican McCain and would do so again tomorrow if given a choice between him and Obama [If McCain would have won, and if American had not voted so STUPIDLY, our economy would have been on the upswing by now, instead of in the toilet due to the policies of these domestic terrorists in charge!!!!
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 2:03AM
I like the idea of the no-confidence vote; but can they, legally speaking, make it stick?
Clinton Lovell| 8.10.11 @ 2:26PM
The Republicans will do no such thing. They will fold because they are just as corrupt as the Democrats. $111 billion in proposed cuts for 2012 that ended up being $22 billion when the debt deal was done? Who do you think you are fooling, Mr. Ferrara? We are talking about Republicans here and Republicans can't follow directions, can't put together a cogent communications strategy and live to spend our money every bit as much as Democrats. When we look over the course of the modern era the real record is that every time we have entrusted Republicans with power they have blown it on corrupt schemes and this time will be no different. I wish I could still drink the kool aid like you do, but the reality is that this is a load of crap. The only way we will ever get emancipation from big-government spending is for the Tea Party to go its own way, with its own finances, its own media outlets, its own agenda and its own candidates. Supporting the Republicans works for your company because the constant left-right tension is how you make grist. For the rest of us who live in realityland it has been utterly disastrous and we are not in the mood to believe still more crap after having had to listen to it from left and right.
Oldefarte| 8.10.11 @ 3:59PM
I'll respectfully disagree with your conclusion that the two political parties are comparable. During my 40 years of following politics, I've witnessed the continual corrosion of this country due to the Democratic Party who have held the majoritive political control of our government during same. It began with Kennedy-Johnson's the Great Society and snowballed donwhill to the present day of Obama/Reid/Pilosi's Welfarecare and Stimulus to the labor unionized employees of state/local governments [all of which have been paid for by the American taxpayers]. Did possibly the tea party members such as yourself proclaiming the need for a third party vote for Obama/Democrat in 2008 when he was professing his propaganda of HOPE & CHANGE [and informing Joe the Plumber the need for WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION]????? Anyone who did so has no one now to blame for the current catastrophe that exists within this country but themselves BECAUSE THEY ELECTED HIM TO THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY. Granted Republicans are no saints and have made their fair share of mistakes and political blunders, but to equate the two parties is STUPIDLY IGNORANT, since the Republican Party at least supports and establishes its political platform based upon CAPITALISM whereas the Democrat Party's is based upon socialism, wealth redistribution, governmental welfare paid for by taxpayers, backstabbing of our foreign allies in support for our enemies, and in general has been constantly destroying this country for the last 40 years. A tea party revision of the Republican Party based upon conservatism should be the desired principle, not a third party establishment [which will only end up diluting the strength of the Republican Party and resulting in a complete/total domination of politics by the Democratic Party]!!!!!!!!
tsd| 8.10.11 @ 5:14PM
The republican party needs to go through a cleansing process in order to get back to real principles and stick with them. The rino's and the limp minds need to be pushed out and the conservatives and supporters of the constitution and representative government need to be brought forward to lead us out of this mess. Compromising principles to get candy from thieves is no way to lead.
irish19| 8.11.11 @ 2:05AM
Absolutely correct. The RINOs must share culpability for this mess and suffer the consequences.
Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 12:13PM
I think that my last sentence proclaimed what you are espousing, did it not? My point is that to equate the two parties on an equality basis is the problem, since the Ds are abour revolutionary socialism and radical extremism. Was this country's existence under the Nixon/Reagan/Bush Iⅈ administrations AS BAD as that under Kennedy/Johnson/Carter/Clinton/Obama's administrations?????????????
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 4:45PM
"Answer the question, do you want a conservative, a liberal or even a libertarian? What kind of candidate do you want the Republicans to run that will keep you from voting for Obama? Answer the simple question or add professional sh*t disturber to your resume"
Dissolve the GOP.
George True| 8.10.11 @ 5:35PM
A very relevant question, Alan. Thank you for contributing something useful to the dialogue.
I would like a conservative libertarian as the GOP nominee. Ron Paul would fit the bill for the most part. Too bad he has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to national defense. Like him, I too would like to see our military adventures in other parts of the world reduced. However, reality dictates that in this day and age, a policy of pure isolationism will leave us highly vulnerable to an EMP attack, cyber attack, and maybe even an ICBM attack from rogue nations or groups.
Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not photogenic, and he comes across as a whiny, cantankerous old eccentric. He is anything but that, but perception is reality when it comes to getting elected.
I would be very happy with Jim DeMint, Alan West, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, or Herman Cain as a nominee. All have conservative bonafides that are beyond reproach, and all have a strong libertarian streak in them. You would not have to guess where any of them stand on the issues.
To answer the last part of your question, how ever much I may wish for a staunch conservative/libertarian at the top of the GOP ticket, I will vote for whoever gets the nomination. If it is the worst RINO that ever lived, that would still be a better choice than ANY Democrat.
There are no more conservative Democrats. Such an animal does not exist any more. Even a RINO is still better than a Communist, which is essentially what the Democrats have now become.
Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 12:21PM
That asinine question is sophmoric to answer: I want either a conservative or libertarian '''''REPUBLICAN''''' candidate to vote for. The one/only time I ever voted for a GD Democrat was to prevent a KKK'er from being elected governor. The only person able to ''add professional sh*t disturber" to their resume currently resides within the white house, and his 'sh*t' will truly be DISTURBED in November of 2012!!!!!!!
Kingofthenet| 8.10.11 @ 5:55PM
The only reason I ask is because it seems like you Conservatives think there NEVER was a Republican President since Reagan. I mean Bill Clinton left the White House with a surplus, eight years later YOUR guy, left the White House with the US economy facing a depression, and Financial Markets nearly destroyed.This is the Economy President Obama 'Inherited' a short 2 1/2 years later. Yet every problem is HIS fault? If you are going to blame the President for 'Ruining' America, have the decency to give him something to Ruin, George Bush did not.
DaveD| 8.10.11 @ 6:16PM
Few here are going to stand up for George W. Bush - I won't, yet I did vote for him twice. There is little argument that the debt went way up during the 2nd Bush term. But that is only part of the story.
The real problem here, and why there is so much vitriol over Obama is the pace of debt increase. It took George W. Bush 4 years to raise the debt by 6 trillion. Obama is on a pace to do it in 3 - would have if the Republicans had not gotten control of the House.
The second, and equally important thing: This recession has lasted much much too long. A case can be made that the reason we are still mired in economic doldrums is directly related to the Federal government doing the wrong things and too much of the wrong things.
Enough of the mindlessness of blaming George W. Bush for everything. Obama and the Democrats have to take their share of the credit. Beginning with the simple fact that so far, nothing they have done has had a positive effect.
More of the same is not the answer.
George True| 8.10.11 @ 6:32PM
It is obvious from your comments that you do not have even a superficial understanding of how it all came about. You have not done your homework.
It would take several articles to fill you in. But briefly, Clinton had little if anything to do with the surplus. It was created by a combination of the Reagan tax cuts, combined with a Republican controlled congress that ended welfare as we know it.
Secondly, A big part of the economic meltdown of 2007-2008 was the collapse of the housing bubble, largely fueled by Fannie and Freddie. On 17 different occasions from 2002-2007, various Republicans including George W Bush and John McCain went before congress and pleaded with them to reform Fannie and Freddie beofre it was too late. They were dismissed out of hand by Barney Frank in the house, and Christopher "Countrywide" Dodd in the senate.
Finally, we conservatves highly disapproved of the deficit spending under GWB. But his worst deficit was only about $400 billion a year, with more typical deficits being $160 billion. The aggregate total of the deficits under GWB over his eight years was about $1.8 trillion.
By comparison, Obama's deficit for last year alone was $1.6 trillion, literally ten times the typical deficit under Bush, and only $0.2 trillion less than all of Bush's deficits over eight years. So in summary, YOUR guy has racked up a deficit of $4.5 trillion dollars in just 2.5 years, which is two and a half times more deficit spending than there was in eight years of bush.
You're damned right it's Obama's fault. He criticized Bush for spending like a drunken sailor, and then proceeded to spend an order of magnitude more than Bush spent. Obama now owns the wrecked economy. Furthermore, the economy will NOT turn around until he is no longer in office.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 6:57PM
Assuming the housing bubble was all the fault of Fannie and Freddy, you really want to give the republicans credit for mentioning that there was a looming catastrophe an average of 3 times a year? This, by the way, while they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. So why didn't they, you know-actually do something?
George True| 8.10.11 @ 7:07PM
Because being the RINO's that they were, they didn't have a backbone. They just didn't have the stomach for the fight. Which is one of the reasons we are trying to purge the ranks of the RINO's at the same time we are trying to defeat the Dems.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 7:24PM
Okay, so if that's true, than shouldn't the Republicans be blamed? If Bush knew the economy was going to collapse, and didn't do anything about it because he was scared of Barney Frank, isn't that even worse than being merely incompetent?
George True| 8.10.11 @ 7:36PM
Whatever, Dread. Have it your way. But don't you affix any blame to Dodd and Frank? After all, they were told in no uncertain terms that their refusal to rein in Fannie and Freddie would cause a catastrophe. But they refused to listen, and instead called anyone who differed with them a racist. But apparently in your mind they are blameless.
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 7:47PM
Sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. (Although as two members of a minority party, I would think the Republicans would have been able to overcome the objections of Frank and Dodd, had they really wanted to.) I don't think Fannie and Freddy caused the housing collapse, but they certainly exacerbated the damage. To me, it's impossible to blame any one person or party for that disaster. But you people seem to think that no conservative policies share any of the blame-it's either the democrats fault (really, Jimmy Carter caused the collapse of the economy 30 years after he left office?) or if there was a Republican involved, well then he wasn't a real Republican. And now it's all Obama's fault.
Gladius| 8.10.11 @ 8:20PM
I agree with you so does the Tea Party. For far too long our reps have been spending fartoo much for over 30 yrs.. Rinos have to go and I want term limits...no more profesional politicians. It is Obama;s falt for 2 reasons 1) he has spent more money in less time then any body in history. 2) he is the president now it is his policies thet are keeping us in this recession
Gladius| 8.10.11 @ 8:12PM
Dred
At that time the Dems got what they wanted by calling the RINOS racist. I am talking Maxine Waters and other blacks from the CBC but I don't remember their names. The RINOS couldn't even do anything about Frank Raines, the head of Fannie. He took home 90 mil by cooking the books but the CBC protected him. Can you guess why ?
DRed| 8.10.11 @ 9:31PM
Because he was named FDR?
J.C.Eaton| 8.11.11 @ 12:20AM
Not to mention the fact that Bush was burdened with a Pelosi-Reid fever swamp of a Congress for most of his tenure.
Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 12:28PM
Clinton left a surplus all due to the conservative efforts of Republicans Ginguich/congress. Teh recession after Bush's term was due to the monumental real estate crisis instituted by Democrats historically from their socialistic legislations and welfare housing policies which came to a financial head at that time. Obama's inheritance could have been avoided if he had originally addressed the need to cut governmental spending unstead of his TRIPLING IT FROM THE END OF BUSH'S TERM. Tell the GD truth, idiot!!!!!!
Kingofthenet| 8.10.11 @ 6:43PM
Bush Deficit would be far larger, IF like Obama he had the guts to put the wars he started on the balance sheet.
George True| 8.10.11 @ 7:02PM
You are wrong. According to the CBO, the cost of the Iraq war from 2003-2010 was $709 billion. By comparison, this far less than the $862 billion dollar Obama stimulus which stimulated exactly nothing.
Stated another way, the cost of the Iraq war is about 15% of the overall deficit spending of Obama in just the last 2.5 years.
Numbers are not your strong suit, are they?
DaveD| 8.10.11 @ 8:35PM
Only a complete idiot looks at the "Deficit" numbers and accepts them as is. All you have to do is compare the "Deficit," as reported by Congress, and the increase in the National Debt to know something is rotten in the D.C. Swamp.
You see Congress doesn't count some things and double counts some other things. As a result, the "Deficit" is a number without meaning. Look instead at the change in national Debt from one fiscal year to another to get the true scoop on what is being borrowed. You'll find that the National Debt rises much more than the "Deficit" would have you believe.
These S.O.B.s lie. Republicans lie. Democrats lie. They are all a bunch of lying bastards.
Oldefarte| 8.11.11 @ 12:32PM
The war's costs were on the books [not the balance sheet, idiot,.....but the INCOME STATEMENT], which was called a SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET [which Obama/Democrats HAVE NOT PRODUCED/BUDGET in 2 1/2 years as required by law]
Who Knows?| 8.10.11 @ 6:55PM
Buy gold.
The dollar = Obama, and baby cakes, they are BOTH bursting, bursting, bursting!
What great political theater!
I just wonder what other bubbles are about to ALSO pop---you know, those that have likewise been portrayed as impossible.
Just think about how many people have lost almost all self respect, for hell's sake!
PBS replayed "Food, INC", last night, a documentary that takes you into the innards of the American "sausage making machine", including the horrible chicken houses and cattle pens.
Honestly, how many people continue to eat such factory "foods" and keep on getting fatter and fatter is suicidally AMAZING!
Lemmings, happy to spend their short lives focused on sticking "tasty" crap into their mouths, and thereby become the walking outhouses they are---and, to vote for Obama, a lot of them.
You'd think that respectable Conservatives would take responsibility for THEMSELVES, but no--
Just how many of the leaders are like Newt, or Rush, or you name them?
Ah, the situation is indeed grave, for Americans.
We are living in the dietary Dark Ages!
Titillating the body's sensory system, especially taste buds, is NOT supposed to be the essence of a human life!
Grown ups eat to live, and they are born to continue to enhance their gross intake as long as they live, not abuse themselves!
Go to college, drink a lot of alcohol, and get it out of your system. Just so with respect to sugary indulgences, etc.
By the age of 30, say, a truly wise person would take into account all the bodily lessons such "experimenting" should yield, and begin to purge bad habits and adopt great ones, UNTIL death!
One SHOULD, given healthy DNA, be able to live an active and healthy life till 100 years of age!
Go for it!
I AM!
See you in 2042!
Ground Control| 8.10.11 @ 7:31PM
Plouffe? Fluff.
Kingofthenet| 8.10.11 @ 9:59PM
I actually think ANY President Republican or Democrat should more or less get his way. For two reasons, he was 'hired' to run the Country and it makes it clear if His policies are working or not. Take so called 'Obamacare' maybe it flops, maybe not, but one things for certain, this isn't the plan Obama would have wanted.If it fails he could absolutely make a legitimate case it was because it was a weak 'compromise' law. There is no way to tell for certian.
Datou| 8.10.11 @ 10:16PM
I am so glad we have Obamabot trolls like Alan Brooks to show us the difference between delusion and reality. Keep up the good work Alan!
Mike| 8.10.11 @ 10:56PM
Your party met it's demise a century and a half ago. They were called the Know-nothings.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.jerseys-hats-store.com
jesse| 8.10.11 @ 10:57PM
Furthermore, the economy will NOT turn around until he is no longer in office.
http://www.ainibag.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com
Jabber3| 8.10.11 @ 11:15PM
Likely voters are beginning to realize this president has serious issues. Specifically he suffers from "dissociative dissonance disorder". This is a condition where one disassociates between ones actions and beliefs when those actions lack agreement with other prospective actions. This is a recusal from reality. Because of this condition he can actually blame himself without ever referring to himself but by projecting his blame on others. Thus by disassociating himself from his own presidency he can campaign against himself in 2012. That is his only chance to win.
POST American| 8.11.11 @ 12:38AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
--MORE riot n' revolution, on command,
further advancing the corrupt, inbred, USURY
class that's plundered worldwide and now
wants your DNA.
WHILE that rather embarassingly OBVIOUS,
set up 'break their hearts' Freemasonic/Templar
Norway atrocity is deftly managed from
view ---like the HAARP-esque Fukishima
world DEPOP OP ----like John Wheeler's
murder -- like the unfolding of the next phase
of the RED China sellout and TREASON OP
(tunnels in Pigeon Lake, RED sovereign zones
in Idaho) ----it seems everywhere and on every level, the 'gorgeous mosaic' of yore, now is what it always was, just a bunch of broken iddy bitty pieces that used to be proud cultures.
NOW, who do we want before that HUAC/Nuremberg 2012 first? ---David Rockefeller? -Nathan Rothchild? -the
psychopaths of the FED? ----Davis Suzuki?
---George Soros? Maurice Strong?
----the RED China TREASON OP Bushes and Clintons?
--the 'heir --is--TOXIC--Rats'?
----WHO?
---------------------YOU DECIDE------------------------
jack chen| 8.11.11 @ 5:05AM
not a good news~
jack | 8.11.11 @ 11:43AM
Riots in London recently, many countries have a debt problem, I hope someone can handle the economic problems, as ordinary people, I do not want crisis again!