Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Debt and Spending Inferno That Never Was.

There are benefits to paying attention to news reports in real time. All too often, memory becomes victim to rhetoric, and with people hearing the same things over and over again, they begin to assume certain things as true.

Spending hasn’t risen sharply under Obama, it’s fallen behind inflation it’s grown so slowly. I knew Obama wasn’t a big spender. Why didn’t you?

The answer is Bush.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama's legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.


The projected deficit for the 2010-13 period has grown from an expected $1.7 trillion in January 2009 to $4.4 trillion today. Lower-than-forecast revenue accounts for 73% of the $2.7 trillion increase in the expected deficit. That's assuming that the Bush and Obama tax cuts are repealed completely.

The article's not entirely favorable on the fiscal front, saying that Obama might have increased spending more if they had let him, but he'd have some serious growing to do to meet the government spending record that the GOP has in the Presidency.

If you wanted to put this in perspective, the article shows a chart with spending increases by President. Between 1982 and 1985, Reagan increased spending by 8.7%, annualized. In the years after that, he increased spending by 4.9% Bush 41 increased spending by 5.4%, and Bush 44? 7.3% for the 2002-2005 period, and 8.1% for the 2006-2009 period (not including Obama's Stimulus Plan.)

Clinton? That big spender? 3.2% for the 1994-1997 period, and 3.9 percent for the 1998-2001 budgets.

If Republicans win on this line, it will only be because of their talent at moving colossal amounts of BS. There is no spending explosion, no sudden, irresponsible budget explosion. Just an economy that really fricking sucks, and a revenue system that was sucking air to begin with.

If Republicans have no clue, or at least no honesty about the fiscal situation, if we cannot trust their hyperbole and hype about what they do with government? It's just marketing. They are the over-hyped name brand of fiscal responsibility.

Even if you look year by year, Obama's spending never was that overactive, not compared to Saint Reagan of the Supply Side, who averaged much greater government growth in his second term than Obama did even in Fiscal 2011, the last year he had Congress.

There has been no spending binge, just a deficit where three quarters of the increase is due to falling revenues, a deficit that we can trace back to Bush on a substantive basis. I know this is painful for Republicans, Republicans who don't want to admit that their fiscal policies are the truly irresponsible ones, but it's the truth. The truth trumps any resentment for Bush getting blamed for everything. It trumps irrational, conspiracy theory based concerns that Obama is an out of control socialist trying to buy the election with deficit dollars.

Or at least it should. But if Republicans manage to win on false pretenses, I got news for them: with policies like theirs, they are going to once again prove how bad they are at managing fiscal affairs. They have a theory about revenues that has been proved wrong twice, with monstrous deficits following. They have a theory about economics and regulation that's been disproved five or six times in the last few decades.

Unfortunately for us, they had a mask of economic prosperity covering for the insensibility of their policies. Unfortunately for all of us, that mask has been ripped off.

America needs a trimmer defense budget, especially with two wars heading towards their end. The Republicans are pushing to stop even an attempt to freeze spending. America needs to end the higher end of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans defended that, even to the exception of the tax cuts to the middle class. They talk of people who have to live on fixed incomes as lucky duckies, and folks who make billions as victims.

Attitudes like this won't balance the budget. They've excluded the solutions that have worked on ideological grounds, and they include methods that want because they want yet another chance to vindicate what hasn't worked.

It's time to end the true inferno of deficit-generating policy malpractice. Obama has proved a responsible fiscal steward. Romney has set himself in the mold of those who increased our spending the most in the last thirty years. Why we should follow his lead, and not our current President's is an interesting question indeed.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2012 4:39 PM
Comment #345036

It seems that the flatten line only came about when Reps took the house. I’ll bet the line would have been worse than Reagan’s if YOUR PEOPLE would have kept control of both houses and the 5t that Obama rang up in his first 3 years would be 10T.

Posted by: KAP at May 22, 2012 7:24 PM
Comment #345038


Lets be honest about this. The large deficit in 2009 was the LAST BUDGET of the Bush administration. It began before Obama was even elected. The first budget of the Obama was 2010 which was set and implemented beginning in October of 2009. That was before the Republicans took control of the House.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2012 8:31 PM
Comment #345040


The Democrats never produced a budget with Obama, so we don’t know what it would have been, except that it spent lots of money.

Posted by: C&J at May 22, 2012 8:36 PM
Comment #345045

We passed a budget for the first year, and then the next year we tried to pass an omnibus bill- that is, a budget, but your side decided it wanted to have a government shutdown fight, so it filibustered it.

Given your sides unwillingness to let bargains talk them out of these filibusters, I can only assume that your side wasn’t interested in a reasonable compromise, so it is your fault there wasn’t a budget. And now, as the House of Representatives, the fiscal turmoil that has followed is entirely your fault, too.

Why? Because your side demands complete surrender, bipartisanship by way of date rape, to allude to Grover Norquist’s infamous quote. Well, we’re tired of being taken advantage of. The Republicans are going to have to learn to make reasonable compromises if they want things pass. That’s the Framer’s design. The system is supposed to force compromise and collaboration, cooperation and rational interaction, rather than simply serve as wish fulfillment for those who can’t bear the thought of seeing Washington’s power in any but their own.

It’s time to learn to work well and play well with others. It’s time to stop running your party for the sake of inflexible ideologues whose policies have run off the rails.

And no, ours haven’t. You can make snide remarks about not being able to pass budgets (a handicap your people inflicted on Congress procedurally, not one we developed because we didn’t have the majority to pass it), but we at least weren’t handicapped by our party’s unwillingness to negotiate. We tried. We went through Lord knows how many Gangs of six or twelve or whatever. We had all kinds of bipartisan meetings and negotiations. We bent over backwards to give you the voice you never gave us. But in return for that, your people embarked on a political sabotage mission, one which has so crippled the legislative process, that your Congress is on its way to being one of the least productive in history, it’s fiscal matters patched together like a two-year old’s blanket.

And meanwhile you insist on continuing tax cuts that

A) Failed to produce a significant rebound in the economy
B) Failed to create a rebound to make up for the revenue lost, and
C) are a huge part of the deficits you blame Obama for, including the current years and future.

There’s no way we resolve a deficit by putting Romney in charge. There’s no spine in that man to defy the ideological bullies who run the party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2012 9:29 PM
Comment #345046

Democrats have not produced a budget in over 1000 days and any hint of a budget from the house now is stalled in the Senate by ole Harry. Stephen, I see now you turned prophet saying Romney won’t be able to resolve the deficit. IMO he probably will do a better job than your messiah Obama has done. At least he might not add to it like YOUR PEOPLE have. Rich, Bush took 8 years to do what Obama has done in 3 so lets be Honest about the facts.

Posted by: KAP at May 22, 2012 10:03 PM
Comment #345047


Democrats never passed a budget.

Cooperation is two-sided. You always blame Republicans. Democrats are the other side of that equation. Evidently they could not compromise enough.

Posted by: C&J at May 22, 2012 10:04 PM
Comment #345054


You realize of course that 2009 is a Bush budget. You might want to rethink what Bush wrought.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #345063

Bush may have wrought a lot of things, but the fact remains Obama topped him on adding to the countries debt by doing it in a shorter time, Rich. The question remains why haven’t Democrats submitted any budgets and why has Reid stalled the ones comming from the house? Keep on Blameing Bush, Rich. It’s the Democrats mantra Bush did it, Bush did it, Bush did it, anything that goes wrong for Obama, IT’S BUSH’s FAULT.

Posted by: KAP at May 22, 2012 10:54 PM
Comment #345065

For over 3 years, Rich, Senate democrats failed to produce a budget quoting ole Harry we don’t need one. The ones the house sent since Republicans took over haven’t even made it to the floor of the Senate. Come on Rich keep on bringing up what Bush wrought.

Posted by: KAP at May 22, 2012 11:13 PM
Comment #345068

YES. It’s Bush’s fault. Let’s say that, because the fact support it. Let’s not say that it isn’t his fault, because he passed the bloody policies that made this mess possible, at the very least on a fiscal level. The line items for the wars, the Department, the Medicare Drug Benefit and Advantage Program, and the legislation for the Tax cuts, are all his policies.

Now, the tax cuts may have been extended by somebody else, but when the party throws a legislative hissy fit to keep it going, and the original deficit-inducing legislation was theirs anyways, it doesn’t change much.

Now what we have here are factual comparisons of the rate of change in spending between Bush’s Budgets, and Obama’s. Those are simply the facts!

You’re looking at them, and coming up with excuses to keep on lying! Because now that you know it, you are now knowingly stating something that is untrue: that is is Obama’s spending, Obama’s fiscal policy that did it.

No. It was the fiscal policy you, and C&J supported. The policy you defended against people like me. That, and the Economic crisis, which near as I can tell, had nothing to do with Obama.

Bush did it. The GOP did it. They increased spending, decreased taxation. It is simple arithmetic what they did. Also simple arithmetic is the financial crisis’ effect on revenues. We’re not at the GDP we thought we would be at this point in 2008. Nowhere close. We could be hundreds of billions of dollars more productive if we didn’t have a chronic unemployment problem.

Which, Republicans again keep on trying to aggravate by stopping needed unemployment benefits, chasing BS Debt Limit negotiations, forcing austerity in a time where our economy is already austere.

You know, the irony is, the Democrats started out with a ton of centrists, a ton of Blue Dogs, ready and waiting to make bipartisan deals that would have likely benefited your side.

But your side wanted to get Obama. And so, you basically nullified their entire reason for existence by vaporizing almost all the opportunities for dealmaking with the record-breaking filibusters. Good job!

If I were you, I would have settled down, and let the charms of bipartisanship work their magic. But you instead chose to make it almost impossible for the Senate to function, and now, all that the House seems to be good for is putting out press releases and throwing red meat bills with no chance of passage to the Tea Party. Yes, cooperation has to be two way. Unfortunately, your side has never willingly cooperated with the President, and has in fact staked everything on depriving him of those opportunities so you can claim there is no cooperation and Obama’s getting nothing or worse than nothing done. And of course, your fingerprints aren’t on any of the legislation…

…and your fingerprints aren’t on any the legislation. Hmm. That’s a problem if somebody has to ask you the question, what did you do with all your time in Congress? Even your Contract With America Congress had some substantial achievements. They got legislation through. They had to negotiate through Clinton, but Clinton was quite willing to compromise.

Now you’ve taken somebody similarly willing and able to compromise, and whacked all the patience for your BS out of him. He’s come to the conclusion that bipartisanship as most people knew it is dead. He knows Boehner doesn’t control his caucus. He know McConnell is an intractable, hyperpartisan. He has suffered one fiasco after another trying to make deals with your people that his folks can accept, and all he’s gotten out of it is a poisoning of his approval ratings by an ill-constrained radical fringe.

My sense is that he took a look at how utterly debased his numbers were after the debt ceiling debacle, and decided that the best thing to do would be to run as a committed, hard-bargaining Democrat, rather than a centrist promising deals with the Republicans he can’t deliver. I mean, let me put it this way: you have managed to push Obama in the opposite direction that the Republican Congress pushed Clinton.

Unfortunately, that direction happens to be in the direction many people want him to go anyways. Wall Street and Corporate America, and doing favors for them isn’t popular, like it used to be. Nobody thinks, any longer, not after TARP, that simply doing favors endlessly for Business will create jobs. Bush’s tax cuts had ten years to create jobs and at the end of it, he’d create fewer jobs than any President since the days of Harry Truman. Not everybody knows that, but they can feel in their gut the dividing line between Clinton’s Plenty, and Bush’s sucking of air.

You want cooperation, your terms have to be better than “resistance is futile, prepare to be assimilated.”

It’s time for the country to rebalance. There’s a place for Republicans and conservatives in all that, but that place isn’t dictating terms to the Democrats any longer.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #345069

Oh, and everybody? Failure to produce a budget, by which we mean pass a whole entire bill that pays for everything for the year, is not relevant here. It’s a red herring for those who don’t want to face the fact that organized budget or not, Obama’s administration hasn’t ballooned federal spending as claimed.

That makes the spending hysteria of the right inconveniently off-based, and shines the light back on the most recent and most consistent spender, George W. Bush.

People should be blamed for the things they do. Obama did not create the economic downturn, and unemployment, not excessive taxes (lowest in half a century, roughly), nor regulatory burden (only a few thousand out of hundreds of thousands of layoffs are attributed to that.) It’s not a lack of cash or anything else like that.

We need to clear the air of the BS, and recognize whose policies did what.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2012 11:53 PM
Comment #345070

Stephen after 3 years it’s still Bush’s fault to you. By the way what Obama budget? You mean the ones that even the Democrats voted against?

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 12:15 AM
Comment #345071

Look, you keep on going on the budget tangent, but budget or no, spending growth is as low as its been since the Eisenhower era.

Your people keep on trying to claim that the deficit is Obama’s fault, but there isn’t a President alive today who has grown spending more slowly than Obama. Even if you were to make the comparison of his fastest grown budget year, Reagan and the Bushes will have grown spending faster.

If there is a budget problem, it isn’t Obama. All the other reasons, a crashed economy, TARP, two wars and a Tax cut… well, if not Bush, then who was President when these things were passed and carried out? This isn’t a matter of rhetorical convenience, i.e. something bad happened, and I don’t want Obama to be blamed. This is a matter of truth, as in Bush signed these policies into law.

If you want to whine that Bush is blamed for something, be my guest, but I think it’s rather unfortunate that you have chosen to whine about it when I have the substance to back what i say. It is fallacious logic to allege that I shouldn’t blame him simply because he gets blamed for a lot of stuff. If the evidence says he and his people kicked this problem off, if his administration is the administration that kept on spending and spending, what is the point of feeling persecuted about it. There isn’t a statute of limitations on the consequences of political stupidity.

I seem to remember you saying all the time that Bush’s problem was growing the government too much. Funny, isn’t it, that we have evidence right here that Obama wasn’t anywhere near the grower of government you thought he was.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2012 12:29 AM
Comment #345100


The government is bigger under Obama. Much bigger. He really does not advocate cutting it. On the contrary, he sees government solutions for most problems. If he is unable to realize his vision for expanded government, I am content.

I don’t think Clinton went into office with the intention of shrinking government, but he adapted to reality.

There is a paradox. Liberal leaders can sometimes cut government because their left supporters don’t complain. Clinton was able to push through welfare reform. Liberals would have fought much harder against that.

But let’s come to a simple expedient. We both agree that 1999 was a good year. Why don’t we agree to advocate Federal spending levels at about the level of 1999 and then tax to support that level, not more and not less, plus a small amount to retire the debt, no less than necessary and not more.

Posted by: C&J at May 23, 2012 8:35 AM
Comment #345121

Stephen, I didn’t bring up the budget issue Rich did, As far as Obama and his flat line on government growth I replied in the very first comment that his flat line occured when Republicans took the house otherwise he would have probably made Reagan’s federal spending look like childs play.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 10:51 AM
Comment #345127

No, if you look at the actual graph, it plateaus immediately. The Republicans wouldn’t take the house for another two years, and the current budget year is the only year where they’ve had budget authority.

I know you want to believe that Republican Congresses equal fiscal discipline, but just remember that for seven out of Bush’s eight years, Republicans had budget authority. Remember, The budget for the next fiscal year is done the year before, so Republicans are responsible for the 2001-2007 budgets.

Federal spending wasn’t what made the current budget deficits monstrous, it’s the economy, combined with the Tax Cuts for the rich. It’s not a spending problem, because spending hasn’t increased substantially. It’s a revenue problem, and the numbers I’ve offered prove that.

The growth in federal spending undermines your claim. As in, there hasn’t been much. Maybe it’s not what he wanted, but that’s not relevant here. What is relevant is that your side’s claims of an explosion of spending are false. It’s a collapse in revenues that is causing the problem.

You said we’re good at adapting to reality. Well, your friends on the right aren’t. That’s why the deficits came back. They were more interested in trying to fulfill Arthur Laffer’s prophecy than settling things at a reasonable balance.

Laffer’s theory has never proved correct, especially when tilted to the rich. It’s no more effective than turning the faucet higher when the spout is blocked. You need people working, and not just in ditch digging/filling, but in catalytically productive jobs, jobs which made other jobs necessary and productive.

We have to stop aiding the feedback cycles in our economy, like outsourcing, trade deficits, and fossil fuel dependence, which hinder our economic growth, and start aiding those which help us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2012 12:52 PM
Comment #345128

Your right it’s a revenue problem Stephen if your side had it to spend, like I said YOUR PEOPLE would have made Reagan’s spending look like childs play. Spending rose in 2009 over Bush’s and lowed slightly in 2010 but we might attribute that to the congressional Democrats worried about their jobs in an election year, so lets quit with the BS if Democrats had it to spend YOUR PEOPLE would have spent us into oblivion. If Democrats still controled both houses our debt would have been close to 20T by now.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 2:18 PM
Comment #345129


If there has not been much spending, you will join me in advocating a return to the 1999 levels.

Do you agree that a competent government would spend at about the level of 1999 and those that spend more are incompetent at least in this place?

Posted by: C&J at May 23, 2012 3:19 PM
Comment #345130

Whether it’s virtue or self-preservation is irrelevant, Democrats can constrain their own behavior as necessary.

Before Obama, the lowest spender of recent times was Clinton. Not Reagan, not Bush. Why? In part because Republicans want to please others back home, but also because they have the funny idea that when it comes to debt and deficits, defense budgets don’t count.

Republicans and folks on the right simply want to believe that they are the responsible ones, and Democrats are the spendthrifts. Republicans, though, have drastically increased federal spending, while Democrats record much lower growths in federal outlays. Perhaps it’s because Democrats recognize that defense spending will count against them just as surely as any other. Republican leaders, though, know defense spending doesn’t count against them, and they also know that the deficits brought on by Tax cuts aren’t held against them, either.

That’s for the Democrats that follow them to take the fall for. Bush did the spending increases. Obama was handed those increases, and a shattered economy with lowered revenues to pay for it. Obama’s not the teenager who just wrecked the house with a party, he’s the parent who has to clean up for them afterwards.

That 1999 thing is a gimmick. Are we going to cut the defense budget in half? Tell the Seniors no more drug benefit or complete coverage of healthcare?

And how, exactly, are we going to magically produce the 1999 level GDP numbers, especially if we’re going to adjust everything for inflation?

You make it sound sensible, but it’s basically a wave of the wand, not a realistic scenario.

Now’s not the time for austerity. Now’s the time to prioritize the return of jobs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2012 4:21 PM
Comment #345131

I’m not sure how Stephen would reply to the idea of returning spending to 1999 levels, but I think it could be done in some ways. Before returning spending to those levels, revenues would need to be based upon the same structure in place at that time; in other words, repeal the Bush tax cuts. Both revenues and spending would have to be adjusted for population growth. The US population was 279 million in 1999. Today, it is about 313 million.

In some ways, resetting federal government revenue and spending to 1999 levels would be readily attainable. For example, there is no reason not to cut military spending drastically, especially considering the winding down of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The trigger agreed upon after the Debt Ceiling disaster included a $500 billion cut for the military. Unfortunately, the Republicans are backing away from that, and rather weirdly, Romney actually wants to significantly increase military spending.

Personally, I think the TSA/Homeland Security could be eliminated.

There are one area of the budget which seen major increases, and another which has not seen that much of an increase, but is non-negotiable: health care costs, and interest on the federal debt. Health care costs more than doubled during the Bush years alone, and those costs were driven by increases in the private sector. Even if Americans were willing to instantaenously halve federal health care coverage, the private sector would still be motivated to continue increasing costs, while engaging in recission and refusing to cover pre-existing conditions.

It’s at this point that resetting the fiscal clock to 1999 falls apart.

The costs of health care could be cut from 17% of GDP to only 12% by doing something very simple: going to universal health care. That would increase federal spending, but decrease the overall cost to consumers by eliminating the profit motive and marketing costs. No private health insurer can match the combined efficiency and effectiveness of MediCare. To save money on the bottom line for Americans, the solution is simple: Medicare for all.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment #345132

Stephen, I look at the graph and spending is higher under Obama then it was under Bush, and raised under Democrat congressional control, the growth may have slowed but the spending is higher. Stephen I have been around a lot longerv than you have and as long as Democrats were in control they spent and spent and spent some more and raised taxes so they can spend some more. You mentioned Clinton there were no wars and he had a Republican controled congress.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 4:52 PM
Comment #345133

The AZ Secretary of State, a guy named Bennett, said he would not put Obama on the ballot unless the state of HI provided proof of Obama’s citizenship. Classic birtherism. The state of HI responded by politiely telling Bennett to pound sand. When he realized the rest of the country was laughing at his birtherism, Bennett called the HI reply a ‘verification in-lieu of a certified copy’ and said that good enough. Too funny!

According to a senior McCain advisor, Romney is being really really careful not to give the GOP base a microphone in his presence. Romney doesn’t want to run the risk of birther questions. He distrusts his base so much, he can’t even let them speak in public while he’s around! Man, that’s funny too.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #345134


Good luck with that medicare thing. It is losing money now and will get worse. We have been paying medicare premiums for nearly forty years and will continue paying another ten. Only then will we be eligible for medicare. If you extend that program to all, who is going to pay for all those others?

Many insurance companies are non-profit. I understand that you like to compare selfless government (where we find such a thing might be interesting) against profit making plutocrats, but it is not the case.

Re national health care - you can do that by bringing some people down to the lower levels offered in Europe, but you cannot do that by bringing lower level people up to the higher levels of the U.S.

This might be acceptable but let’s be open about it.

Posted by: C&J at May 23, 2012 5:59 PM
Comment #345137

That’s the great thing about having money. If a person has enough, they can afford more expensive health care, whether it is in the US or Europe.

In fall of 2008, the economy went through a credit crunch. The stock market crashed. One of the biggest losses of money- ever- came when House Republicans refused a bailout plan.

Thank your lucky stars, KAP, that you did not have to live through a Great Depression. Don’t ever forget that Obama and the Democrats saved your economic bacon, buddy, and that people who throw out the kind of lines you’ve been tossing brought this country to its knees. Saving your bacon was an ugly thing. No one like bailing out ‘banks too big to fail’ and GM. It took lemon socialism to avoid another failure of capitalism and another Great Depression. Don’t ever forget that, KAP, that Obama and the Democratic party spared you from living through another Great Depression.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #345138


We don’t have to go to Europe for an example of universal health insurance. Canada is next door. They even call it Medicare.

In a recent post, you extolled the economic development of Canada. Have they gone broke by instituting a universal single payer health insurance program? Their doctors and hospitals meet the same accreditation standards as US doctors and hospitals.

In survey after survey, Canadians overwhelming reject a return to a US style health insurance system. Remember, they had the US system in modern times.

Posted by: Rich at May 23, 2012 6:18 PM
Comment #345139

phx8, Saving my economic Bacon??????????????? LOLOLOLOLOL. If congress and Obama don’t act on the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire and spending issues that will take place we are headed for another resession. The world economic situation is in termoil and you have the audasity to say Obama and the Democrats are saving my bacon that is the most foolish idiotic statement I have read on this blog. If Obama and the Democrats continue thee way they are going you won’t be able to afford balona, let alone Bacon.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 6:27 PM
Comment #345140

It may annoy you to hold Bush accountable for things, but the evidence clearly shows he’s responsible. He starts at about 2 trillion, works his way up to 3.5 trillion. Obama, on the other hand, starts a little under 3.5 trillion… and stays there. Bush, in the same period raised spending by about half a trillion dollars.

He also cut taxes significantly, so he increased the deficit from both sides.

Can you admit to yourself that whatever you convinced yourself in those years, Bush increased spending and decreased revenue profoundly? Can you admit that Obama did neither in this case, that most of the decrease in revenue comes from the bad economy?

Well, I hope you can, because it seems like you’re just trying to hang onto your talking point, your insistent, misleading picture of Democrats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2012 6:32 PM
Comment #345141

In 2008, it took trillions- I say again, trillions- in tax free loans to the purveyors of “Free Enterprise” in order to prevent capitalism from collapsing into a Great Depression. The investment banking arm of the financial sector disappeared; with the exception Goldman Sachs, every major investment bank failed or had to be absorbed by a commercial bank. Huge commercial banks, such as WAMU, failed too. Thanks to deregulation and the repeal of Glass Steagall, the credit crunch/derivatives wildfire spread, and big insurerers such as AIG failed too, and had to be bailed out with taxpayer money. The crisis spread into the private sector, and the federal government was faced with a choice: allow GM and others to fail, or bail them out too.

So, yeah. To this day, Bush and the GOP and conservatives continue to deserve blame for what happened in 2008. It’s been brutal, and we’re still living with the repercussions. Never forget. Those guys tanked the economy, and it was horrible, and they still promote the same agenda that caused the disaster in the first place. Democrats and liberals saved the economy. As ugly as the solution might be, thank your lucky stars for the Democrats and Obama, because without them, we would be living through another Great Depression for years and years.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 6:35 PM
Comment #345142

I hold Bush respobnsible for his stupidity Stephen and also Obama for his which is something YOU don’t do. As I have said time and again Stephen you would defend Obama and Democrats if they committed murder. phx8 Keep believing the lie.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 6:41 PM
Comment #345144

You accuse Obama of something the facts don’t, and can’t support. That’s not holding anybody accountable, that’s propagandizing against them. Obama’s growing government at less than two percent growth, a rate not seen since the early years of Eisenhower, more than fifty years ago. How is he a profligate spender, when by comparison, everybody, including the Republicans you would idolize, he’s dramatically more stingy?

If Obama had a better economy, he’d be well on his way to ending the deficits and paying down our debts. Trouble is, he inherited one of the worst economies of the last century, with only the Great Depression having done more damage.

It’s to the credit (if you can call it that) of Republican Propaganda that so many people actually think this is an ordinary recession. But nothing about its mechanism is typical of the inflation and cyclically driven recessions of recent times.

You can whine about my loyalty to Obama, but until you can prove me wrong, you have to conceded what the facts demonstrate: Obama has not been a runaway spender, in fact he’s been exactly the opposite, as far as recent American history is concern. The portrayal of Obama as a big spender is absolute bull****.

Will you change your view of him accordingly, given the facts, or will you retain your unfounded prejudices?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 23, 2012 8:01 PM
Comment #345146


Most TARP funds were repaid already. The government actually made some money on this.


When Canadians need a procedure done quickly, those who can come to the U.S.

I will say again, you can trade the U.S. system for a Canadian style. It depends. You will gain equality but lose quality.


“That’s the great thing about having money. If a person has enough, they can afford more expensive health care, whether it is in the US or Europe.”

Yes. This is true. Unlike most of the posters here, I have experienced medicine in both Europe and the U.S. European medicine is similar to the quality of care you might get at a county hospital in the U.S. It is good and available to all, but not quick nor of superior quality. America has a wider range.

We have a problem of equality. In Norway, they didn’t want to ALLOW private hospitals because that would lead to inequality. Some people there were even more equality based than we are. My idea is that inequality doesn’t matter so much as a basic level. I think we should indeed provide a basic level of care and then let people pay if they want more.

Posted by: C&J at May 23, 2012 8:57 PM
Comment #345147

In this we agree. It’s not a matter of equal outcomes, but establishing a floor to ensure everyone receives the basics.
I’ve been in many countries as a tourist, and conversed with people about their governments and health care, but never needed to find out first hand.

Well, I can back up everything I’ve said with links to non-partisan sources, and I can appeal to memory, which most of us possess; but there’s nothing to discuss if you simply dismiss me as a fool who believes some unspecified lie.

The Omnibus Act from the 1993-94 Democratic Congress was signed by Clinton, and increased tax rates. Coinservatives warned that it would be a disaster. Gingrich declared it would cause a depression. Instead, that Act played an important role in creating budget surpluses. By the end of Clinton’s term, that tax hike (and spending restrictions) resulted in projections of a $10 trillion budget surplus. Economists from Clinton’s team studied the problem of what to do if debt were completely eliminated. They concluded it was necessary to hold some debt in order to keep Treasury markets functioning, something like the way a business keeps its lines of credit open even if it does not need to borrow. So letting the Bush tax cuts expire makes perfect economic sense. I say that knowing that I personally will pay quite a bit more if they expire. However, my self-interest will be best served by a healthy economy and a rising stock market far more than by paying a few percentage points less in taxes.

Don’t let the ‘world economic situation’ throw you. There will always be something to worry about, always always always. There will always be something out there to feed the bears. Keep it in perspective, whether it’s the Euro or the Chinese economy. Sometimes what appears to be bad news for Greece or China might actually be good news for the United States.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 9:28 PM
Comment #345149

Stephen, Our economy is enough fact, maybe you don’t see it but I do when I go to the grocery store and fill up my Gas tank. Unemployment up since he took office 8% or better. His spending is up Stephen maybe it hasn’t grown the way other Presidents have but I can attribute that to our piss poor economy. Housing forclousers up, unemployment up, gas prices up over 100% since he took office, EPA regulations up stiffiling corporate growth. Losing millions to Solindra and other green energy companies. Need I go on Stephen??? O yea, and a HCR bill that most people DO NOT WANT. Yes Stephen, Bush grew government and did things that were unpopular such as getting us into 2 wars and doubled our debt in 8 years unlike Obama doing the same in 3 years. So show me what I have to be grateful for in these past 3yrs and 5 months of Obama’s Presidency.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 9:44 PM
Comment #345150

phx8, I to can back up what I say by non partisian sources such as the grocery store, price at the gas pump. The number of people in my community scratching their heads trying to figure out how to feed their families, the number of unemployed. The number of elderly relying on the food banks and meals on wheels and non governmental agencies just to survive on a daily basis. So keep on telling me how Obama and the Democrats are saving my bacon.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 10:01 PM
Comment #345152

Anecdotal stories are not a substitute for facts.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 10:09 PM
Comment #345154

Then I suggest you open your eyes and those anecdotal stories will be fact phx8.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 10:13 PM
Comment #345158

So personal anecdotes are good enough? I do a lot of the grocery shopping and cooking at my house. My lifestyle has improved a great deal under Obama. I buy the best ingredients now because I can afford to do that, locally grown, very healthy. I don’t know or care if the price of milk has gone up a few cents. Same for gas. At the height of the stock market crash, the stock I care about went down to 5. Five. I lost my job. My wife lost her job. My son lost his job. My daughter was a college student. The price of my house declined by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now, thanks to the economic policy of the Obama administration and a booming stock market, my stock is at 91. I am semi-retired and about to not even bother with the ‘semi’, and I’m only 55. I work out daily, read, collect stamps, write. My wife went back to school and is working on her graduate degree not because she has to do it, but because she wants to do it. My son is working. My daughter is going to graduate school in the career field of her choice.

My eyes are open, KAP. I know who drove the stock market down, and why. I know who helped it recover.

I realize most people have no idea of what is going on with the economy, why it declined, or how it recovered. But personally, I do have a very good idea, and my decisions have turned out to be absolutely right because I correctly assessed the prospects for the economy under Obama, and as a result, I have been richly rewarded.

But that’s just my personal anecdote.

Posted by: phx8 at May 23, 2012 10:54 PM
Comment #345159

Unlike you phx8 I don’t attribute my sucess or failure to any president. I attribute them to the choices I have made no matter who is in the W.H. No phx8 Obama had nothing to do with it, it was choices you made that made you sucessful. If you relyed on Obama IMO you and your family would be in the poor house. I to know what made the stock market go down and why it recovered and it wasn’t because of any president. I know you blame Bush for the stock market slide but unfortunetly for him he was in the W.H. at the time. Would you do the same if it tanked under Obama? Would you blame him or would you continue to blame Bush? So no phx8 my sucess was NOT because of any president it was because of my choices and decisions when the stock market started to slide. Obama and his policies have NOTHING to do with my sucess.

Posted by: KAP at May 23, 2012 11:25 PM
Comment #345160

Of course all of us see character determining fate; nevertheless, that fate takes place within a larger context, a context we all share, a political context. And that political context influences our lives in many ways. Politics influences the economy. An administration chooses to pursue regulation or deregulation, privatization or nationalization, oversight or a hands-off attitude, tight or loose fiscal policy. An administration places people in charge to implement those policies at the Federal Reserve, in Treasury, at the Labor Department, and so on.

The economic collapse at the end of the Bush administration was not some sort of odd inexplicable event that just sort of happened without any cause. There were most definitely political decisions that played major roles in causing that collapse.

The simple truth is that the Bush administration, the most conservative administration in our lifetime, got it wrong. They got it wrong on virtually everything, from foreign policy, to failure to secure the country from the 9/11 attack, to an economic policy that allowed massive outsourcing of manufacturing and tech jobs, to tax cuts, to deregulation and privatization, to transforming budget surpluses to deficits, to being handed an economy projected to run a $10 trillion surplus in a decade and then crashing it, driving it off a cliff, and doubling the national debt.

“Blame”? Are you kidding? I don’t just ‘blame’ the Bush administration because George W just happened to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. I condemn them BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG, and we still suffer the ill effects of their bad decisions to this day.

Posted by: phx8 at May 24, 2012 12:36 AM
Comment #345163

And I likewise for Obama, think he got it wrong and still making the wrong decisions phx8.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2012 8:23 AM
Comment #345172

lost weight

Are fast diets can help people to Lose weight? Pounds quickly diets are all over television set channels, internet sites, information stands, stereo airwaves, and anyplace else they are able to feasible be witnessed or observed advertised. These diets are huge institution in America. Why are these diets this kind of the huge effect over our lives? Well, statistics are displaying that practically 60% of individuals are now inside the over pounds to obese spectrum.

Posted by: about Diet Pills at May 24, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #345188

There is a fallacy of logic called Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Technical name, but basically it translates to “After this, Therefore because of this.”

Unemployment reached 7.8% in January of 2009, and reached 8.3% the following month. By July of 2009, it was 9.5%.

But by the end of that summer, the recession was over, and unemployment peaked at 10.0% in October. Reagan’s unemployment, with a 2.7% was 10.8% not only that, But unemployment remained over 10.0% from Sept. 1982 to June of 1983. And this is all with Reagan’s tax cuts in action.

So, the question becomes, just what precisely is better about Republican “job creation” policies? The Tax Cuts that Republicans worship Bush 43 and Reagan for were followed by serious job losses, and they did not out-perform Clinton, who resolved the deficit with a tax increase.

Republicans have not demonstrated that their policies are superior. They do their utmost to sell their vision as what the economy needs, but when put into practice, the promised results don’t come.

Ah, but then you have excuses for what happens then.

I think it’s time for Americans to stop enabling the one-sided, rigid-minded thinking of the GOP. It’s time to really try something different. The longer this gets put off, the worse it gets for those who hope to maintain a fairly free market. The markets aren’t exactly reassuring people’s faith in them with the London Whale and Facebook Fiascos. Unfortunately, some people are so caught up in their own egos on Wall Street that they can’t face reality and plea bargain more moderate rules before the disasters inspire the public to come down with an iron fist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2012 11:56 AM
Comment #345189

Stephen, I don’t live in the past and could care less what the unemployment was under Reagan. I live in the here and now and care about the unemployment now not 30 years ago. Reagan made mistakes and I was not happy he was elected as was I when Bush was elected but YOUR PEOPLE put up candidates who were worse than he was. The only good one YOUR PEOPLE put up in the last 30 years was Clinton who I voted for. Obama IMO is an incompetent jerk who never should have been president, he knows nothing about how to fix the economy. We have tried something different and IMO it hasn’;t worked. IMO YOUR PEOPLE should have ran Hillary at least she had an advisor who had first hand experience.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2012 12:18 PM
Comment #345191

The linked article is curious. First of all it relies on data from the OMB for the historical but uses the CBO for the estimates (2012 and 2013). The on budet outlays estimate at OMB is 3,795,547 and 3,803,364 respectfully. Looks like he had to switch sources to show a decrease in 2013 and to make the percentages come out right.

So next, the huge increase in 2009 is all of Bush’s fault. Most of that is from TARP and the auto bailout, both of which Obama voted for and, at least with the auto bailout, he is running his current campaign based on that being a good thing. He does give Obama credit for the $140b in stimulus which was one of Obama’s first acts- to increase spending and not decrease it. The “relief pitcher” did nothing to slow the rate of spending and has shown no real desire to decrease spending. If the 100mph spending drunk slows down to 90mph that’s great news in Washington, but to us out here in flyover land the drunk is still speeding.

Posted by: George at May 24, 2012 1:57 PM
Comment #345194

Well, for one thing, the difference you present is pretty insubstantial, about .206% increase(OMB). Not exactly the biggest spending spree in history, to contradict his point, which the math would show us is a .778% decrease(CBO).

For those who George failed to get up to speed, we’re talking about the difference between one agency’s estimate of 2012/2013 outlays and another. Both are estimates at this point.

Well, I go back through the OMB numbers, like you want, and here’s what I get: The average rate of increase for Obama is 3.01%. Bush still scores 8.18% expansion of federal spending a year. Just by way of reference, Clinton’s annualized growth was 3.2% If you score Obama’s actual budgets, you still get 3.24%

So even if the man’s arguments are based on some considerable wishful thinking, you still have Obama practicing Clinton levels of Fiscal conservativism, in contrast to 8.18% spending increases by Bush in his last term in office.

So lets be blunt here: We’re not talking massive spending sprees on Obama’s account. There’s no evidence that Obama’s exploded spending.

In fact, the explosive spending increases occurred in the 2008 and 2009 budgets, 9.3% and 13.25%, and those we know come from the recession, and it’s costs.

Republicans weren’t very frugal either, with a GOP President in charge, averaging 6.58% spending increases every year they were with Bush. Compare that to Clinton’s 3.24% first term growth, his 3.86% second term growth, or even his 3.7% growth with the Democratic Congress along side him.

Overall, Republicans have not performed as they’ve talked, and Democrats, despite the Republican’s rhetoric, have tended to outperform the Republican-imposed reputation for irresponsible spending.

Or, put another way, Republicans seem to pile on this rhetoric in times of economic trouble, when revenues naturally fall, but when the good times return, they take this country down an irresponsible fiscal path, and then blame the Democrats when they hand over the big deficits. (a 255 billion dollar deficit for Clinton, a 1.4 trillion dollar defict for Obama)

Obama is literally the scapegoat for Republican sins. They grew government without paying for it, They increased spending vastly (from Clinton’s 1.862 trillion to 3.5 trillion under Bush’s last budget), and now want Obama to suffer for it, not to mention for stepping in to salvage the economy they left in ruins.

They screwed it up, and their not satisfied with Obama’s rate of repair.

You want to talk about drunks, then you tell me what cutting taxes more and preventing cost cutting in the Pentagons going to do to undo the deficits. Even Paul Ryan doesn’t talk about the end of deficits until about thirty years out, and Romney’s projecting that he’ll improve job numbers to a number worse than what the CBO has for Obama under current policy for the same timespan.

I mean, really, you’re selling us this garbage, but it is garbage. Voting Republicans into power won’t improve things, and in fact will likely make things worse, and the numbers bear this out.

A lot of IMO. You know, Obama’s doing just about as well as Clinton under very difficult circumstances It’s interesting that you can’t see that.

You seem to base a lot of your opinion on a kind of emotional opinion, rather than on any kind of real world evidence. Feelings and anecdotes shouldn’t be our guides, meaningful, objective information should be, and unfortunately, you dismiss the need to compare policy on such a basis. Results are what matter here, not feelings.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2012 3:47 PM
Comment #345196

No not emotional Stephen, No Obama is not doing as well as Clinton. At least Clinton knew when to compromise. YOUR PEOPLE want it your way or not at all. Like I told Rich open your eyes and those anecdotes will become FACT then you can tell me about your comic book results and the doctored math.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #345197

Just a quick question…

The 2009 budget was Bush’s:

Lets be honest about this. The large deficit in 2009 was the LAST BUDGET of the Bush administration. It began before Obama was even elected. The first budget of the Obama was 2010 which was set and implemented beginning in October of 2009. That was before the Republicans took control of the House.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2012 8:31 PM

You realize of course that 2009 is a Bush budget. You might want to rethink what Bush wrought.

Posted by: Rich at May 22, 2012 10:15 PM

In fact, the explosive spending increases occurred in the 2008 and 2009 budgets, 9.3% and 13.25%, and those we know come from the recession, and it’s costs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2012 3:47 PM

And in the another post during this same period, we are told that the recession ended in 2009:

But by the end of that summer, the recession was over, and unemployment peaked at 10.0% in October.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 24, 2012 11:56 AM

So…does that mean according to the liberal’s logic that Bush (and his spending) is the one responsible for pulling us out of the recession? Obama apparently had no control of the purse strings during the 2009 budget year, and it was the spending during 2008 and 2009 which “saved [our] bacon.”

Posted by: adam at May 24, 2012 5:21 PM
Comment #345199


If you look carefully at the charts included in the original link, you will find a portion of the 2009 budget attributable to Obama due to the stimulus plan passed in February of 2009 when he took office. It was a supplement to the budget which began in October of 2008 and was a temporary spending measure to counteract the plunging economy. If you don’t believe liberal sources, how about the libertarian Cato Institute?

Posted by: Rich at May 24, 2012 6:27 PM
Comment #345201

Let’s face it lefties, people on the right don’t even try to make sense of anything these days and it shows in all their arguments. This probably explains that:
Despite Being Warned, Right-Wing Media Buy Into The “BS” Claims About Obama’s Spending Record

Posted by: Adrienne at May 24, 2012 7:48 PM
Comment #345202

No Adrienne, Most of us on the right can see that spending by Obama was more than Bush but at a slower rate. If you put your glasses on you will see the last year of Bush was just under 3.5t and all of Obama’s are at 3.5t or over. Besides congress has the purse strings and between 2007 and 2011 by golly DEMOCRATS controlled congress.

Posted by: KAP at May 24, 2012 8:03 PM
Comment #345203

I have read Stephen’s rediculous post and some of the left’s pitiful attemps to defend it. So in response, I will just link to Rush Limbaugh. He had a very good discussion on Nuttings article. I would suggest that everyone read Limbaugh’s explanation and answer his statements. That is, unless you are incapable of understanding the truth:

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 24, 2012 8:30 PM
Comment #345207

Looking over that rediculous graph that Stephen so happily posted about only stated a half truth. Although Obama has the distinction of being the President who grew spending the least also has the dubious distinction of being the president who spent more per year than any of the last 43 presidents on the average of 3.5 TRILLION per year. A few years back David Remer chastised Bush for growing the debt 4.9 Trillion over 8 years but now that Obama is in office our debt has risen 5 Trillion in 3 years and buy the time his first and hopefully only term he will have grown the debt 6 Trillion. Lets face it righties, the lefties don’t even try to make sence of things these days and it shows the way they try to defend their beloved Obama. Taking a quote from Adrienne and rearanging it a little.

Posted by: KAP at May 25, 2012 1:02 AM
Comment #345208


Shall we place this in the “Rush said it so it has to right” folder?

I actually listened to this live today.
Am I the only one that finds it curious that Rush will disparage the “lame stream media” all year, and then use their “facts” to make a point when he sees fit?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 25, 2012 2:09 AM
Comment #345219

It seems we all want to overlook the 400% increase in doing business which along with others things done when President Bush announced he was splitting a piece of gold in two. For unable to increase the Prime Interest Rate back to 5% even today how is America to fill our “Money Bucket?”

No, President Obama has allowed the Right Wing Talking Machine to run away with this idea of him spending so much money; however, putting the two wars on the books, not explaining that government like businesses are forced to adjust their books to account for inflation, and the extreme cost of increasing security does give anyone concern and IMO shows a lack of understanding by both sides.

For why Stephen may be right about President Obama not increasing spending over the years. Is it because since Congress was unable to come to agreement that the yearly budget; thus, forcing the line to stay flat or due to President Obama not wanting to present a budget that would reduce spending by 400%?

Now as far as a compromise, well all one has to do is look at the Republican 2012 Presidential Candidate Debate to see that the Right does not want to make a deal of 10 to 1 budget. So at what point and which programs do we cut in order to achieve a budget the Republicans/Tea Party could accept and support in order to return to 1999 spending? For don’t we first have to figure out how to return the price of gas to #.99 cents per gallon or reduce the government fleet consumption by 400%.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at May 25, 2012 3:46 AM
Comment #345243

The percentages stated above are just gobblygook. They are what makes lies.

Those who want to cry about austerity are just that, crying. It has never been done in our life time. So your use of the word austerity is a red herring.

The spending reduction likewise has never been done before. I am talking about mass spending, gross spending. Not a buck and a half here and there. Departments in WDC should slash spending by at least 20%. Those who want to spend to get rich are a pound foolish. Nobody in the history of governments has spent themselves rich.

Now if there is ever going to be a Congress that takes responsibility, then quit passing hundreds of laws of all kinds. We don’t need new laws. New laws just create more control by the government in all phases of life. That just shows what the irresponsible Congress is doing to cover its arse. The only thing that needs passed is a responsible budget. Then go home.

Again, those percentages above are gross distortions of what the financial picture presents. You just don’t know what you are talking about. The picture is just one of numbers, charts, talking points, and so on. Reality has not set in on those spend yourself rich people.


Posted by: tom humes at May 25, 2012 12:10 PM
Comment #345252

Obama basically has offered the Republicans their own policies back. That was why the Mandate was chosen over the Public Option.

The trouble is, Republicans have blocked eighty percent of the legislation in the previous two Congresses, and virtually everything in the current Congress. When you can demonstrate how to negotiate with a brick wall, then you can lecture me about compromise. If Republicans were really looking for compromise, you would have seen the filibuster used to force legislation to be more right-wing friendly. Instead, you have this absolute barrier, intentionally devised to prevent Obama from having any achievements to speak of. They didn’t want any successes Obama had to have the “bipartisan” imprimatur on it, and they punished Arlen Specter and the maine senators for voting for cloture, at the very least.

As for what most of you see? It’s more a question of what you’re blind to. A person making a conclusion purely on the evidence would have to concede that Democrats increased spending at a lower rate, even when they were just by themselves. Compare what Bush did when he had Congress on his side. A Democratic Congress and a Democratic President still increased spending at a lower rate than Bush did for all but one of his years in office.

As far as the growth in debt? Look, this is what happens when you apply most of the Bush policies in the absence of a healthy economy to support them. Spending didn’t increase that much from the last year of the Bush Administration, just the lack of revenue, which was a problem started long before. Besides, Republicans are largely unwilling to undo the problems that created the budget mess, so why should they complain about its cost as if somebody else is responsible?


So…does that mean according to the liberal’s logic that Bush (and his spending) is the one responsible for pulling us out of the recession?

Except Obama made several significant revisions to policy, including a 700-800 billion dollar stimulus plan, which the author of my initial source up there throws into Obama’s column. We can credit Bush for TARP and getting the Fed moving to avoid the monetary shock, sure enough. Only trouble is, he and the Republicans had to blunder through letting Lehman Brothers collapse, and the disastrous first vote on TARP, which let the panic continue unimpeded for more time.

Bush must bear the burden of his mistakes, even as we credit his successes.

Oh, by the way, I think I should warn you that as a conservative, you’re straying into dangerous territory here, because Bush’s 2008 spending features a great deal of deficit-funded stimulus and economic disaster mitigation outlays, which your side, at least when it comes to Obama, has declared socialism.

Right, that was Republicans then, who have been repudiated by Republicans now, right? Except you’re going back to try and salvage some credit for Bush, which means that you have to concede the wisdom of debt-financed recovery measures.

See, this is the Republicans’ problem: their ideology has become stripped down and purified so much that they’ve strangled their options. You can no longer do any number of things that Bush and Reagan did, and you have to repudiate just about anything Obama comes up with, even though he often agrees to things that are conservative in origin. It’s not for nothing that Romney became the candidate for the Republican Party this year. What is more representative than a candidate who has to pretend he’s an ideologue, even though nobody buys it, deep down. What is more representative than a man who has hemmed himself in by taking numerous positions simply on the premise that they are opposite his opponent’s?

It’s not good enough simply to find what your opponent does and do the diametric opposite. You have to find what makes sense for you, concede what you can agree on with people, and fight on what remains, which is usually less than what you might thing.

I do not concede that the man speaks the truth, so I don’t lose any sleep over your assumption about people who don’t believe Limbaugh. Simply put, even when I did the math by the other figures that guy suggest, Obama’s average federal spending increase was not much worse than Clinton’s, who was the last guy to balance a budget.

Ah, but if revenue is the problem, that paints a big damn target on your tax cuts, and lack of a realistic jobs policy, because a revenue shortfall can only resolved in two ways: increase growth, or increase taxes. I know you’ve argued that tax cuts increase growth but the last decades jobs numbers put paid to the notion that tax cuts increase jobs sufficiently to make up for tax cut-born shortfalls in revenue.

And what is it about conservatives here and the inability to spell ridiculous?

tom humes-

The percentages stated above are just gobblygook. They are what makes lies.

Your failure to understand basic math is not my problem.

Your problem is, you’re not an empiricist. It doesn’t matter what the evidence is, not to you, because you found your belief on doctrines you hold sacred, instead of theories that have been put to the test.

If we ask a basic question, has spending gone up all that much under Obama, the answer is plain: no, not in comparison with virtually ever president of the last half century or more. The source for that answer is a set of public reports that plainly set out the dollar amounts involved.

You simply do not want to tolerate an answer that doesn’t lead to the conclusion you want to make. It doesn’t matter to you how basic or primary our sources here are, you want the conclusion I reach, and that other reach to be that you reach.

Show me the evidence that what I assert is false. Don’t simply expect to dispute the credibility of the source and spin your way out of an awkward factual position. Scratch that, a painful factual position.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #345255

Stephen, Lets cut with the crap Republicans do this, Republicans do that. The same can be said for YOUR PEOPLE. You posted the graph, and the graph says Obama is spending more than any other President in our history, he loaned money to failed green energy companies to the tune of half billion dollars or more money that we will NEVER recover. Obama’s stimulous failed to do what he thought it would do, the summer of recovery that never happened and 5 trillion more in debt in a shorter period of time then Bush, at least it took Bush 8 years to do what YOUR BOY has done in 3. YOUR PEOPLE want to raise taxes so you can spend more, I wouldn’t be against raising taxes if YOUR PEOPLE were serious about cutting spending which I can see they are NOT. Obama spending 3.5 Trillion a year and what has he to show for it unemployment 8+% for 36 weeks, gas prices doubled, the only energy policy he has is GREEN, I’m all for green energy but realisticly that will not happen in my or your lifetime maybe more so yours but not mine. Stephen I would chastise a republican president just as fast as I have Obama if he made the same blunders. Bush made mistakes and a lot of them growing government was one of them. Stephen, like I said you put the graph up and it shows spending at an average 3.5 trillion per year, by the way Bush gave Obama the budget he wanted in 2009 and he had a Democrat congress 2007-09 and they got what they wanted.

Posted by: KAP at May 25, 2012 3:25 PM
Comment #345258

“Shall we place this in the “Rush said it so it has to right” folder?
I actually listened to this live today.
Am I the only one that finds it curious that Rush will disparage the “lame stream media” all year, and then use their “facts” to make a point when he sees fit?”

Thanks RM, you failed to answer Rush’s charges and you attack Rush; typical liberal democrat move. I failed to see where you said Rush was wrong…

Tom Humes is correct, “The spending reduction likewise has never been done before.” Stephen uses the same switcheroo numbers that Obama and the dems use. A good example is when dems cry, “they’re gonna cut funds to the poor, old people, and lunches for kids”; but the truth is, nothing ever gets cut. It’s a gimmick called “base line budgeting”:

Stephen Daugherty, while trying to defend his ridiculous post said:

“I do not concede that the man speaks the truth, so I don’t lose any sleep over your assumption about people who don’t believe Limbaugh. Simply put, even when I did the math by the other figures that guy suggest, Obama’s average federal spending increase was not much worse than Clinton’s, who was the last guy to balance a budget.”

You would not concede anything that proved your messiah to be a liar; which he is. Let me put it this way; I said Rush Limbaugh gave a good rebuttal to Nutting’s ridiculous article. If I had quote Rush’s comments, you would have given another long speech against plagiarism. So I was wrong in believing anyone from the left would actually read his argument and respond. Stephen, the whole point of Rush’s comments s that Obama is using fudged numbers. And I might say about your Clinton comments, you’re full of shit. What good would it do to discuss this with you? You find absolutly no fault in Obama. You probably have a little statue of Obama on a homemade altar and you pray to it every day.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 25, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #345263
No Adrienne, Most of us on the right can see that spending by Obama was more than Bush but at a slower rate. If you put your glasses on you will see the last year of Bush was just under 3.5t and all of Obama’s are at 3.5t or over. Besides congress has the purse strings and between 2007 and 2011 by golly DEMOCRATS controlled congress

KAP, Mitt Romney said:

“Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history.”

Once again, Mitt Romney is a liar, and the right is making themselves look crazy trying to defend that lie.


Our ruling

The Facebook post says Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has “accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” because it’s actually risen “slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.”

Obama has indeed presided over the slowest growth in spending of any president using raw dollars, and it was the second-slowest if you adjust for inflation. The math simultaneously backs up Nutting’s calculations and demolishes Romney’s contention. The only significant shortcoming of the graphic is that it fails to note that some of the restraint in spending was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 25, 2012 7:09 PM
Comment #345265

Adrienne, 3.5 Trillion average per year, no other president has ever spent that much each and every year in office. Open your eyes and look at the graph.

Posted by: KAP at May 25, 2012 7:21 PM
Comment #345269

First of all, I looked at the outlay numbers at the OMB I devised a test that would give me a “+” for every budget where federal spending was higher, and a “-” for every budget where the outlay was lower.

Obama is the only President in the last thirty-two years who didn’t have a year where this years spending was the greatest ever. So, if 31 out of 32 years, including Twenty years worth of Republican outlays share this distinction, then isn’t it kind of unfair to Obama, who has been the only President, Republican or Democrat, to do what you want?

Funny how quickly that argument falls apart. Why? Because you’re stringing slogans and talking points together that were never mean to stand the test of fact. Yes, Solyndra failed. What about a rapidly expanding solar and wind energy market, or battery production both which have increased under Obama?

About the debt increases? Well, lets look at the dynamics of the revenues.

In the year 2000, the increase from the year before was 10.82%, to the tune of two trillion dollars.

You will not see another year with that much money coming in until 2005. Wave goodbye. A combination of a recession and tax cuts lower revenues sharply to a low of about 1.78 trillion for the year 2003. But it gets worse. Why? Because by 2009, the tax cuts and the financial crisis reduce revenues to 2005 levels. They stayed there for the next year, more or less. In essence, Obama has to pay for his first year of federal government with just 137 billion dollars more than what Clinton had to pay for the federal government ten years before.

6.79% increase in revenues for all intents and purpose.

For what spending? For an increase over that time of 1.667 trillion dollars, or a 93.2% increase. Even if Obama had gotten the ideal revenues of the Bush Administration, those of 2007, 2009’s expenditures would have left him with a 949.7 billion dollar deficit.

Bad news: we’ve got 2006 level revenues coming in next year.

You can say we had a spending problem, but the truth is, Republicans ran the place for most of those years, and their average was something about 6.5% increase a year. They didn’t do so hot revenue wise, as my research is telling you, what with the Bush Administration essentially ending its fiscal career with revenues increased by 6.79%, but it’s spending by almost 100%.

That’s how we got a trillion dollar deficit. A ten year experiment with fiscal insanity that ended pretty much like you could have predicted. And the show was run by the Republican pretty much until the system broke from beneath them. The Democrats were not going to solve in one year what the Republicans had wrecked in the several years preceding it.

And Mitt Romney, who pledges to re-run this failed experiment in fiscal alchemy, is saying we need another dose of this policy. The reality is, you cannot make the spending cuts necessary to resolve this problem without gutting one out of every fifteen dollars in economic activity. Other nations, like Greece, have tried to spending cut themselves out of the problem. But the problem is as much economic as it is fiscal, and unfortunately, government spending feeds overall domestic production.

Republicans are prescribing a depressant for a patient in an economic coma, and a weight-loss pill for a government that’s fiscally anorexic on the notion that America might look better as an investment if our already revenue-short government were to take in even less revenue.

Can you understand where my frustration here is coming from? The numbers alone tell you that whatever the Republicans attempted with their fiscal indiscipline didn’t work. We had maybe three years in that whole decade where revenues were high, and they were fed by a reckless, bubble-driven market. Even there, the Bush Administration never ran a balance budget.

Clinton did. He only did because he initiated a policy that increased revenues at an average rate of 7.11% Bush? He averaged 1.18% increase per year. Clinton raised taxes in a time of greater plenty, and kept a tight rein on spending increases. Result? Surplus. Bush did the opposite. Result? Deficit.

The true fiscal conservatives are no longer in the Republican party.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2012 7:37 PM
Comment #345270

All I see Stephen is your BS not backed up by any sources. At least I refer to your graph.

Posted by: KAP at May 25, 2012 7:42 PM
Comment #345271


“Thanks RM, you failed to answer Rush’s charges and you attack Rush; typical liberal democrat move.”

You assume an attack where none exists; a typical far right republican move.

Where exactly does Rush prove his charges? Why should I feel the need to refute the charges if he provides no source for them?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 25, 2012 8:00 PM
Comment #345274

The Federal Reserve and the CBO have warned that the fiscal cliff of expiration of the Bush tax cuts and reductions in federal spending will put the US economy into recession. The economy is on federal life support. Reductions in federal spending and increased taxes will suck money out of an already fragile economy dependent upon federal infusions to maintain demand. Less money means less consumption and higher unemployment.

For crying out loud, can’t anyone address the issues from a responsible economic perspective. Are both the Fed and the CBO crazy? The myopic obsession of the conservative right on federal deficits and spending completely ignores the fiscal situation of the private sector attempting to deleverage from historical levels debt not seen since prior to the Great Depression. The response of the left seems equally myopic on the Bush tax cuts. OK, lets restore the lost tax revenue. That will fix the federal deficit situation. Unfortunately, it will also reduce aggregate consumer demand.

The truth of the matter is that in the short run, we cannot afford to fix the federal deficit. It would throw us into recession, ala 1937. Don’t believe the Federal Reserve or the CBO? How about then looking at England that instituted an austerity program of cutting public spending and increasing taxes. It is now in a double dip recession.

Posted by: Rich at May 25, 2012 9:27 PM
Comment #345290

You’re not being real specific in your claims, so let me confront the charge I think you’re making:

It’s BS. No matter what source you use, Obama’s budgets reduce, not increase the rate of spending increases from year to year, as compared to Bush’s.

The specific charge that you and other Republicans make is that Obama exploded the deficit. But we can’t find the source of the explosion in spending, nor the implosion of revenues in Obama’s administration. We simply can’t! Both the increase in the rate of spending growth and the decreases in revenue begin under Bush, and his administration is essentially a wash when it comes to revenue growth, for both economic and tax policy reasons.

Why does this meet with such resistance from Republicans? Because it makes it clear that the fiscal policy of the GOP is a farce, a good way to increase deficits and debt, rather than decrease them.

Oh, I’ve always been an easy fellow to persuade with smug, nonfactual dismissals of my arguments. ;-) But serious, what do you got, other than a Rush Limbaugh link? Summarize his argument for me! I don’t let a bunch of skeptical at best, contrarian at worst Republicans scare me out of offering the premises of my argument!

I’ll tell you what I did. I went in excel, and took the spreadsheet from the OMB, and I took the years that we have actual figures for, and figured averages for the rate of spending and revenue changes. So, I extrapolated what it would be like if I took the period from 2002 to 2011, and extrapolated Clinton’s rate of Spending and revenue increases. That’s 3.55% on the first, on average, and on the second, about 7.11% These are based on averages of the rates of increase from each year, so I’m not saying they represented the real figures from year to year. When I hit 2008, I switched spending increases to the real percentages, and averaged the revenue growth rate after 2007 with Clinton’s rate, to roughly simulate the effect of the recession on the revenue side, as if the tax cuts had never been passed. This is just a rough gaming out of things, so don’t hit me for claiming this is anything but an exercise in extrapolation.

So, what if we continued Clinton’s fiscal course? My rough estimate was that we would have paid down three trillion dollars, and only run a brief deficit in 2009. The debt would be cut in half, not more than doubled at this point.

There are probably a million problems with my extrapolation, but it likely would have been true that most of our current challenges would have been better handled if we had stuck to what had worked, instead of once again taking your conservative fantasy out for a spin.

What’s not counterfactual, though, is that the Spending under Obama did not explode. No matter what you said, the numbers and the difference between them don’t lie. The rate of change, even with your most favorable source, is far less than what Bush did with his spending and tax cuts.

Republicans seem to have it backwards. They rack up debts in good times, then try and pay them off when the economy’s in crap shape. It works better the other way around.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2012 10:37 PM
Comment #345303

RM, evidently you can’t read.

Re/typical liberal personal attacks:


Shall we place this in the “Rush said it so it has to right” folder?

I actually listened to this live today.
Am I the only one that finds it curious that Rush will disparage the “lame stream media” all year, and then use their “facts” to make a point when he sees fit?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 25, 2012 2:09 AM”

I read personal attack in this, and I saw no refute of his facts. Oh, I forgot, you can’t read.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 25, 2012 11:04 PM
Comment #345316

Well, we have RM who can’t read and we have SD who won’t read. Then SD comes back with this BS:

“I’ll tell you what I did. I went in excel, and took the spreadsheet from the OMB, and I took the years that we have actual figures for, and figured averages for the rate of spending and revenue changes. So, I extrapolated what it would be like if I took the period from 2002 to 2011, and extrapolated Clinton’s rate of Spending and revenue increases.”

I bet SD was one of the critics of Reagan’s fuzzy math; yet he comes on WB playing the same old Obama, democratic juggling of numbers to try to prove his point (Oh, wait a minute, to try to protect Obama). STEPHEN!!!$16 trillion in debt and who do you think put us there? The buck stops at his desk big boy. If he had any balls, he would take responsibility, instead of blaming everyone else. In fact Stephen, why don’t you name me one Republican President who blamed anything on the previous administration? I get so sick and tired of listening to that communist SOB blamming everyone else for his problems. It has become a joke and Obama is the joke of the century. He is the worst president in the history of America, if he opens his mouth, he is lying. And you Stephen are his water boy. Why don’t you grow up? When his ass gets stomped in Nov and the dems lose Senate and House seats, more state legislators, and governorships (due to his complete incompetence), we will have to listen to you and the rest of the gloom and doom liberals whine and cry that the sky is falling all over again. You were the first to claim that Bush through away the 2008 election, but you’ll be the first to cry foul when Obama gets the boot.

Since you dislike Rush Limbaugh, and I find him to be very enlightening, I have to agree with something he said about liberals a few months ago. Liberals hate human beings; they believe humans are the reason for every problem in the world. All we do is eat, breed, and shit. We eat the animals, we use up the resources of the earth, and we shit on the environment. Liberals believe if were only animals on the earth, everything would be perfect. Is that how you believe SD?

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 25, 2012 11:29 PM
Comment #345317

Stephen, If you have been reading and comprehending what I have been writing I never said anything about Obama increasing the rate of spending. I said he has spent on the average 3.5 Trillion each year which the graph you linked shows which is more than the other 43 presidents have done. Stephen are you trying to tell us the debt clock is wrong and Obama didn’t add another 5 Trillion to our debt? What has he spent the 3.5 Trillion each year on? The unemployment rate has been above 8% for over 36 weeks so it can’t be job creation. We know food stamp ranks have grown, paying out unemployment for 99 weeks. Bad loans to green energy companies. We know Obama travels on Air force One more times than he is in the White House it seams and the fuel cost for that plane aint cheap. So explain to us where 3.5 Trillion goes each year of our elusrious leaders rein.

Posted by: KAP at May 25, 2012 11:34 PM
Comment #345340

I kind of like the human race, actually. Nature doesn’t deny us our minds or our intellects. It just won’t coddle us if we do the kinds of stupid things that, paradoxically, only humans are smart enough to come up with. We can figure out how to do things, but we don’t always figure out, when we should, whether it profits us to do things that way.

This has been true of man throughout time. When the bible speaks of a prodigal son, it speaks of a wasteful young man. The bible talks more than once about being wasteful, or mishandling the gifts and the wealth that God sees fit to let us have.

So, no, my opinion is that to the extent our fate as a species is in our hands, we should do our best to ensure a continued future for it, and the best one if we can swing it.

As for whether we’re the reason for every problem in the world? Not quite. But as long as human being exist, so do human troubles. I do prefer, though, solutions that don’t involve our species self-annihilating. :-)

I am loyal to Barack Obama, and it’s not the greatest idea for you to try and argue me out of it. Not when you haven’t yet dealt with the underlying reasons why I support him. You’re mad that I’m not giving into your browbeating regarding what kind of a President he is. I’d have to say it will take time to figure out how good a job he did, and there are plenty of outstanding issues he has to deal with. He can fail. He can make mistakes.

But he has done better than the last President on almost every count. He’d had the bad luck of having to clean up for a decade’s worth of failed fiscal policy, and unfortunately, Republicans in the punditry and in Washington are not lacking enough in hypocrisy to take the blame themselves for their fiscal failures. Obama was handed the largest deficit in US history. The deficit hasn’t risen that high since.

Your argument is the equivalent of accusing the guy bent over the corpse in a Matlock episode of the murder. Proximity does not imply causality.

As for what I will do if I lose? Well, you know, this then wouldn’t be the first loss I suffered. My first year here, I had to weather losing to Bush. I didn’t take it serenely, to say the least, but I didn’t despair. People got enough of Bush’s BS, and so 2006 and 2008 happened. Expectations ran high, but then your party started blocking everything, so that people would become frustrated at the lack of help. The Tea Party and everybody else are promising big things, then and now, but… ooooh, unlike the Democrats, who left behind a significant record despite the opposition, the Republicans have done absolutely nothing, save stir up needless controversies and crises for their own political benefit.

I think the Republicans are facing both a Demographic and a psychological challenge this election, because they’ve defined themselves so neatly into a box, both on the issues, and on who they try to appeal to on the issues. I’m not projecting a slam dunk at this point, but Obama performs fairly well under pressure, and he has a skill Romney lacks: he knows how to redefine debates on factual and personal terms, rather than just the usual sort of skill at spin.

Also, his party gives him more room to explore his options, rather than insisting that he supports a laundry list of doctrines, precisely, and to the letter.

Romney will have to be very lucky to win. He will have to overcome several disadvantages, including those self-inflicted by his own remarks and policies. And he will face, in debates, a trained orator who knows very well how to trip up a man who is too clever with his words for his own good.

Obama? Obama’s main problem is that he’s already a leader, and what happens on his watch will influence whether he’s re-elected. Trouble is, Republicans are forgetting that now they’re in the same boat, and not everybody’s as enchanted with them now as they were two years ago, much less two decades ago.

So, I am concerned about the outcome, but not full of anxiety that I have the wrong guy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2012 1:27 AM
Comment #345341

You don’t have real appreciation for the momentum of policy, or a real grasp on how bad a hole this financial crisis knocked in our revenues. Revenues dropped by 16.6%, sending us right back to where we were when we started the decade. A 2009 budget with a year two thousand level of revenue, after about a 93% increase in spending By Bush.

This isn’t holding Obama accountable. It’s political opportunism with a subject Republicans should know better than to lecture people on. You want to pretend a Democrats overspent when Republicans actually did. You want to pretend that the economic hole isn’t big, but it is.

As for foodstamps and unemployment, the presence of such programs, among others (including the FDIC), are much of the reason we don’t see worse than just young hipsters occupying some park. Government was able to hit the brakes on this slide into economic purgatory.

If you’re going to create a system where workers often bear the brunt of economic downturns, you better have the good sense to help them mitigate their risk, or else they will take political action to regain what they have lost.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2012 1:38 AM
Comment #345346


Your math sucks with or without your alledged use of Excel. I will stand by my simple approach that spending yourself rich never, never works. And when you say it does, you are deceiving yourself and are ignorant of basic math. Austerity, as I said a moment ago, has never been tried in out lifetime. So what are you talking about when you mention the tried and true measures? Are you cross-eyed? Or just plain ignorant?


Posted by: tom humes at May 26, 2012 6:11 AM
Comment #345347

We have reached is distressing formulation where some of our liberal American and European socialist friends are making it seem like growth and austerity are two choices which can be made by government. Of course, we would all choose growth. The problem is that the spending has not been creating as much growth as it has debt and the debt is stopping growth.

Thing of the worst case. Can the Greeks really spend themselves to prosperity? Is it their problem that they have spent too little in the last decade?

We Americans and some others do indeed have a near perfect way to get out of this recession - natural gas. The natural gas boom will be REAL wealth in the form of inexpensive clean energy into the economy. This is the kind of stimulus that will work. The other kind is wrong.

Posted by: C&J at May 26, 2012 8:02 AM
Comment #345357

tom humes-
You want to take the “your math sucks” angle, be my guest, but have the courtesy to do your own calculation and come back to that with us. Otherwise, none of the rest of us have any good reason to trust your conclusion.

My calculations are reproduceable.

As for your “spend yourself rich” notion? I agree that just randomly throwing money into the economy won’t work. But are you really convince that no profit can come of spending money, because in that case, you’re practically denying the very basis of capitalism. You have to spend money to make money. Now, under ordinary circumstances, I wouldn’t be calling for fiscal stimulus. I’d be calling for everything to be paid for, for the budget to be turned towards being balanced. I was never a fan of fiscal stimulus for its own sake. But your argument doesn’t have the same sizzle, if ours is merely a disagreement as to whether stimulus would work or not. If what you want to allege is that I’m some sort of moron who’d want to see this country drown in debt, then you can pitch this debate of ours as a good vs. evil match, with you wearing the white hat, and me the black.

That’s the thing. Folks on the right these days do this same sort of thing on virtually every issue. But the real disagreements are not that bad, and the failure to come to consensus on account of these useless controversies has actually set back your causes substantially. You would have had Obama’s cooperation on a long term fiscal reconciliation plan, but you’ve wasted your political capital on pursuing a provably counterproductive plan instead.

As for Austerity, it has been tried out, over in Europe. It’s been tried out in England, in Spain, in Greece, in Ireland. Their growth has suffered, their deficits remain high, and their debts have not been resolved. Just like excessive debt doesn’t necessarily mean a rosy economic future, neither does an attempt to resolve that debt in the shadow of economic downturn work all that well.

It’s not a matter of whether you spend or pay down debt, it’s a matter of whether the economy is strong, and the revenues that come off of both private and public enterprises are enough to absorb all that deleveraging. If they’re not, all the deleveraging does is take money you might have needed to catalyze economic activity and lock it away. Austerity measures, by definition, cost those taking them. Sacrifices are required. The question is when you stop cutting fat, and start cutting away muscle.

This latest economic crisis is the worst time people could have chosen to deleverage our national debt. We are running at 2006 revenue levels, which themselves are not that much better than 2000 year levels. Revenue never grew fast enough to cover the spending increases, and it will be difficult to cut that spending without harming the economy, and that is in fact what the CBO, and other financial institutions are warning could come with the austerity that the Republicans in Congress forced on us.

You want things to be simple, but they’re not. This isn’t merely a question of the Federal Government’s activity in isolation, but in terms of the whole economy, of which its spending is a significant source of activity. Like it or not, there are consequences to rolling back economic activity, even when it comes from the government.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2012 10:19 AM
Comment #345368

A republican overspent??????? If I’m not mistaken Obama is a Democrat. In 2009 Bush gave Obama that budget and that was the last YOUR PEOPLE gave. If you would hold Obama responsible for what he has done I would probably think I was on the wrong blog. So keeping people dependent on government is the answer to all our problems. Keep extending unemployment is a real good insentive for someone to look for a job and feeding him to. I never said republicans had all the answers but after 3.5 years of Obama I know YOUR PEOPLE sure as hell don’t. As for your math Stephen I’ve seen enough of the Democrat adding and subtracting to favor themselves. As I said time and again I just looked at the graph you posted and it tells us who the big spender is, and I never mentioned his rate of growth.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #345376
Adrienne, 3.5 Trillion average per year, no other president has ever spent that much each and every year in office. Open your eyes and look at the graph.
I really don’t know what to say — other than that YOU need to open your eyes and look at ALL those graphs on the link I put up earlier. In fact, it appears that everyone on the right here is just being willfully dishonest and spinning like tops. And I think it’s because you folks actually know you’re wrong, but still want to defend Romney’s “cowpie of distortion” regarding Obama’s record. And in that case — if we can’t argue over the actual facts — there doesn’t seem to be any point in continuing this discussion. Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #345377
Adrienne, 3.5 Trillion average per year, no other president has ever spent that much each and every year in office. Open your eyes and look at the graph.
I really don’t know what to say — other than that YOU need to open your eyes and look at ALL those graphs on the link I put up earlier. In fact, it appears that everyone on the right here is just being willfully dishonest and spinning like tops. And I think it’s because you folks actually know you’re wrong, but still want to defend Romney’s “cowpie of distortion” regarding Obama’s record. And in that case — if we can’t argue over the actual facts — there doesn’t seem to be any point in continuing this discussion. Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #345378

Please forgive the double post. I had a supposed “submission error” but it seems to have gone through anyway.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #345379

Btw, I wanted to share a really good laugh:

Bill Maher: What Exactly Has Obama Done That Has Made Conservatives So Angry?

Posted by: Adrienne at May 26, 2012 3:09 PM
Comment #345380

The key thing that you leave out is what happens if you’re wrong about austerity. If the withdrawal of government funds doesn’t inspire enough confidence, and with that business, then what you get hit with is the consequences of a big organization in your economy spending less.

So far, spending less in the economy has not netted the government in Europe who engaged in austerity the kind of economic growth you promise. Their unemployment remains high, and in civilized countries, that means expenditures in order to keep them off the streets, but it also means lost business as those people engage in their own austerity. Even in good economic times, austerity can cause an economic slowdown. We’ve seen multiple occassions of this.

That our most successful efforts at austerity occured in the midst of economic booms with increases in the tax rates for many people is no coincidence. That’s the simple math of how things get done. The economy provides more money to both soften the blows of cut spending and the withdrawal of money by taxes. Austerity means that the government keeps more money, and draws more money out of the nation at large. Debt gets paid down, in lieu of other economic activity.

That last sentence is essential. Austerity is the choice to engage in deleveraging rather than, say, supporting green energy, or building highways, or providing a social safety net, or providing government services on a regular basis. It’s also the choice to take money out of your hands to pay off debt with, rather than have you spend it on something.

Either way, there is a cost, and Republicans act like they’re not. This is essential because really, Republicans haven’t been straight with Americans about what austerity means! They speak of it in terms of responsible decisions around the dinner table, but do most people realize that the austerity that a government engages in means that folks around kitchen tables will be called upon to make sacrifices?

Of course not. That wouldn’t be a popular way of phrasing it. Vote for us, and we’ll make you pay for years of tax cuts for rich people, and spending on wars and projects we didn’t have the guts to ask you to finance with your tax dollars.

Republicans need to be kept honest about this. They need to be made to own up to the fact that when we go austere, it’s ordinary people who will feel it, and in these hard economic times, feel it with extra sting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2012 3:42 PM
Comment #345382

Adrienne I am not commenting on his annual growth I am commenting on actual dollars spent per year which averages 3.5 Trillion dollars spent each year. I realize he didn’t grow spending he just spent the most out of all the presidents to date. 3.5 Trillion each year is a whole lot of money with nothing to show for except 8+% unemployment, more people on food stamps then before. Get it through your head I AM NOT TALKING ANNUAL GROWTH, IAM TALKING REAL DOLLARS SPENT ANNUALY

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2012 4:19 PM
Comment #345383

P.S. Adrienne read and comment on what is written not what you think is written.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2012 4:22 PM
Comment #345384

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen; where to begin:

“I am loyal to Barack Obama”; no, you are obsessed with Obama, you are his water boy, and you worship the ground he walks on.

“But he has done better than the last President on almost every count. He’d had the bad luck of having to clean up for a decade’s worth of failed fiscal policy”; your answer is incorrect because it is based u[on your worship of him and not on logic; secondly you again carry the water of blaming previous presidents for his failure to get things under control.

“As for what I will do if I lose?” No, you will lose and the blame can be laid at the feet of your messiah who has tried to transform America into a 3rd world socialist nation, and thank God there are no more than 20% of you Obama worshipping socialists in America. When he goes down, you will be able to thank Obama’s policies and America’s intellect. I might add, when he does lose, you will cry, cry, cry; and I will be around to remind you why he lost.

“I think the Republicans are facing both a Demographic and a psychological challenge this election, because they’ve defined themselves so neatly into a box, both on the issues, and on who they try to appeal to on the issues. I’m not projecting a slam dunk at this point, but Obama performs fairly well under pressure, and he has a skill Romney lacks: he knows how to redefine debates on factual and personal terms, rather than just the usual sort of skill at spin.”

The skill that Obama has that Romney lacks is the ability to be a habitual liar; and by the Republican’s “box”, I am assuming you are referring to conservativism. Get over it Stephen, America is changing, and the left has attacked the TP movement, they have called it dead and a passing fad, and here you are attacking it again. So what is it Stephen? Is the TP dead or not? It was a TP candidate who defeated 36 year Lugar in IN. It was TP candidate to win house primary in KY 4th district. It was the TP backed Deb Fischer who won the Senate Primary in Nebraska. It is a TP candidate Mia Love (a black conservative woman) who won the congressional 4th district primary in UT. This TP backing alone blows Adrienne’s BS racism out of the water. We could go on and on with TP victories. So what is your point about a “BOX”? For some reason, you don’t believe they can win? Sorry SD, but like I said before, there are more conservatives in America than socialist liberals like yourself, and the American voters are fed up with your socialist agenda

Then Stephen finishes with this nugget of wisdom:

“Obama? Obama’s main problem is that he’s already a leader, and what happens on his watch will influence whether he’s re-elected.”

This is a contradiction Stephen. How can Obama be a leader who takes responsibility for what happens on his watch; when water boys like you have been carrying the Obama mantra of “it was Bush’s fault” for the past 3½ years? A leader takes responsibility: therefore he is no leader, because nothing is his fault. No, the problem for Obama is trying to convince the American people that Bush’s policies have been in control since 2008.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 26, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #345386

I know what you’re talking about, I’ve seen the figures myself. So, Tell me, yes or no, do we stop the Wars overseas this instant, no process of pullout, no nothing? Do we precipitously end the Medicare Drug program, which so many have come to depend upon (including those I know), people who would not survive, in many cases, without their medicine? Do we allow all the tax cuts to lapse, including the AMT and Middle Class tax cuts?

Seriously, that’s what you’re asking for. That or some unspecified entitlement cut.

I’m not saying there aren’t ways to reduce spending or slow spending growth to an acceptable level. I’m just saying that you aren’t considering what composes those outlays, or that a lot of the problem comes simply from the fact that we decided to raise spending without doing what it took to raise the revenue. You’re just getting angry that we haven’t done it. Of course, you don’t get angry with Romney for floating more tax cuts, or at the Republicans for reneging on their debt ceiling deal. You reserve your anger for one group of people, and then coddle all the rest by responding to any claim of imbalance with accusations that the accusers are just as bad as the accusers.

Well, let me be blunt: if it’s not true, it’s not true. Balance at the expense of recognition of the facts is not balance, it’s bias in the direction of whoever’s faults are held equal to the lesser offenders.

Aggressive, aren’t we?

What are you hoping to do? I don’t see you disputing the numbers on revenues. I don’t see you disputing the numbers on the outlays. I don’t see your successful refutations on the percentage difference between the years, or my conclusion that Obama basically started out his administration with year 2000 revenues for a 2009 set of outlays, something he had no authority to change.

No, what I see is somebody saying “your math is wrong” independent of any mathematical argument. See, in a debate, it kind of helps if you explain why something is wrong, rather than just claim it. If you just claim it, and people know better, you just look like a desperate fellow that lacks any real response.

Which I think you are. Whatever Rush said, I’m sure there’s a transcript you can offer, so you can quote his explanation, and we can put his theories to the test. But if you don’t want to put his theories to the test, it begs the question: what confidence should we have in your claims, if you’re not willing to back them up.

There is no contradiction in the fact that not all bad policy dies a quick death. The real world, and the United States budget are not simple things. They carry institutional and economic weight, and so most wisefolks don’t go making huge changes without checking out the results.

That Republicans won’t let the unpopular tax cuts for corporations and the rich go, and instead suggest tearing into social safety net spending shows how distorted and out of touch the Republican’s policy has become.

The Box is very real. See if you can follow me around the room on this: One of the things that got the Republicans smacked around in 2006 was the unsuccessful attempt to privatize social security. Then Republicans, trying to bash the President, go after the President, claiming to seniors that he would cut their benefits. This is false, but that doesn’t stop them. But then, they turn around and basically try and push a system that is essentially a huge cut on Medicare, the voucher solution in the Ryan Plan.

Republicans had to push on each one, despite how much flack that would get them, despite the fact that quite a few people noticed the inconsistency. Why? Because Conservatism nowadays is tightly defined as being contrarian to those they think of as liberals, or insufficiently conservative.

You note this with pride, but fail to recognize just how much you’ve hemmed yourself in. Do you think, for example, that anybody really believes that Romney objects to his old policy, Romneycare, for any other reason than to please folks like you? The contradiction here, is that while you’ll try and find people like him, who don’t scare people away with hardline political views, you then, turn around, and require them to operate in line with those same hardline views.

Now, you might be able to oust Lugar, and other “RINOs”, but the question is, do their replacements appeal to people. You made damn sure you got a Tea Partier with Sharron Angle, but unfortunately, the woman was so bad a candidate that she lost to Harry Reid, who many people had put on political deathwatch. Same thing with Christine “I’m not a Witch” O’Donnell. Winning a primary is not the same as winning the general election, and I’m always telling people on DailyKos the importance of that.

And no, just because one TP is black doesn’t mean that none of the rest are racist. You can argue, legitimately that race was not enough of a problem for the people of that district to choose her. You cannot argue that the movement nationwide lacks for individuals who have said or done racist things, or that there aren’t Tea Party organizations associated with white supremacist or neo-nazi groups. Your people have a problem, and they ought to take care of it, rather than try to paper over problems with rhetoric meant to appeal to a standard of politically correct balance.

This is another part of the box, really. There are quite a few things I think the Republicans should have dissociated themselves from, but which they instead embraces as a way to avoid conceding political points to the Democrats.

This bad habit started under Bush, and Bush’s incompetence didn’t make it seem any less necessary. But I would say it’s part of why the Republicans ended up so weak. For one thing, it helped keep controversies alive that Republicans could have ended by conceding the points. It helped keep people in the close embrace of the party who would have otherwise had been kicked out or allowed to resign. It kept the Republicans trying to promise an impossible level of hardline policy making, stuff that wouldn’t wash with the general public. Worse yet, it’s kept the Bush policies alive, as Republicans do everything they can to keep the status quo in place, despite how much people hate it.

And really, it’s what got people like me active in politics. See, our main beef is less ideological, and more pragmatic. The policies that the Bush Administration insisted on simply didn’t work. We might have been happy just to push Bush and the others into better policy, and if Bush had been like most presidents, he would have sought to avoid trying to zealously defend a policy that didn’t work on the substance.

But Bush kept on pushing and supporting the policies, despite the harm they did. So people stopped thinking that Bush was a harmless figurehead, and started focusing on what he did with the job. Folks stopped thinking of issues in the abstract as something political nerds were interested in, and started wanting to change things. Attempts to suppress the Democrats backfired, resulting in a much more activist base rising up to challenge the Republicans. Since then, it’s only gotten worse, and your party has gotten more hardline to push back.

But time is not on your side. You relied on a particular set of generations of largely white, male, and affluent people, and those generations are greying and falling silent into history. We might not win this election, but we will win future elections merely by force of numbers.

Obama’s done a lot, but so have your people, and you cannot deny that those who prevent change from taking place are as responsible for current policy as those who make change occur.

So, tell me, when Republicans prevented the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich from lapsing, how did that help the deficit, or the national debt?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #345387

Stephen I am asking you a tough question, Is Obama spending more per year than any other President? What do we have to show for it? Now I want you to be honest I know it will be hard since Obama is your idol.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2012 6:43 PM
Comment #345389

Bin laden Dead. G.M. Alive. Iraq Done. Health care still needs work but it’s a good start. Taxes cut for the middle class done. The COST of the wars on the books not hidden off the books to make the budget look smaller. Depression averted. Not bad for three and a half years with no help from the right

Posted by: Jeff at May 26, 2012 7:17 PM
Comment #345390

Stephen, I’m asking for fiscal responsibility, was Obama fiscally responsible when he gave Solindra a half billion dollars and other Green energy companies that went belly up? Is it fiscally responsible to have multiple programs doing the same thing? Is it fiscally responsible to give grant money to STUPID studies? Is it fiscally responsible to fly around in AIR FORCE ONE on a whim when fuel cost are rediculous? The wars are not costing 3.5 Trillion each year. Medicare needs overhauling. Medicare drug programs help people but I’m sure that needs looked at for waste. Most entitlement programs are full of fraud and waste. Food stamps alone cost the tax payers 75 billion per year in fraud in people selling them for cash. Social security has it’s waste and fraud and we know the disability part is full of fraud and waste. These are just a few examples of things that need done that aren’t getting done and I know it isn’t all Obama’s fault. But spending 3.5 Trillion per year and nothing to show for it is irresponsible.

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2012 7:18 PM
Comment #345391

If it wasn’t for Bush, Bin laden would still be alive, G.M would still be alive without government help, Ford did it why couldn’t G.M. and Chrysler and how many dealerships were closed adding to the unemployment rate. Pushing through a H.C. law that most of the country didn’t want really smart and the scotus is yet to hand down their decission. If we keep adding to the debt we will be like Greece and other Euro countries, yea not bad Jeff

Posted by: KAP at May 26, 2012 7:27 PM
Comment #345393


“Is the TP dead or not? It was a TP candidate who defeated 36 year Lugar in IN. It was TP candidate to win house primary in KY 4th district. It was the TP backed Deb Fischer who won the Senate Primary in Nebraska. It is a TP candidate Mia Love (a black conservative woman) who won the congressional 4th district primary in UT.”

And it was the TP that pressured the AZ Attorney General to demand that Hawaii release Obama’s birth certificate for what… the fourth time?

Point of fact; Emteaparty darling “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio still has a deputy in Hawaii “investigating” whether or not the certificate is a forgery. Arpaio has already wasted $40,000 of the taxpayers money on this bone stupid snipe hunt.

I can only suppose your crowing about the TP is to make a point.

But for the life of me I just can’t figure out what it is.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 26, 2012 8:56 PM
Comment #345397

RM, check your facts, Arpio’s investigation was privatly funded. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to investigate a crime; Holder has been refusing to deal with black crime for 3 1/2 years.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 26, 2012 9:59 PM
Comment #345398


The facts are that the trip to Hawaii was funded by “Posse” money. The investigation hasn’t just been in Hawaii.

By the way, what crime has been committed? Obama’s birth certificate was released multiple times by the State of Hawaii. Surely no one would believe that two separate administrations in the State of Hawaii have been involved in a massive conspiracy to defraud the American people.

That would be silly.

Arpaio has crimes committed by criminals here in Maricopa County he isn’t investigating, such as multiple child abuse cases in El Mirage that were under his jurisdiction when they were committed.

Apparently the fact that the victims were Hispanic means they don’t rate investigation.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 26, 2012 10:17 PM
Comment #345399


Hyperbole, just plain hyperbole. Rhetorical garbage.

What evidence is there about the Hispanic charge?

You are beginning to sound like SD.


Posted by: tom humes at May 26, 2012 10:31 PM
Comment #345400

tom humes,

“Hyperbole, just plain hyperbole. Rhetorical garbage.

What, that all of this birther nonsense is being pushed by the tea party?

There is a Sheriff Dept. deputy in Hawaii providing “security” and Joe expects to be “reimbursed” by the posse;

Here is a link to the molestation cases;

“In El Mirage alone, officials discovered at least 32 reported child molestations — with victims as young as 2 years old — where the sheriff’s office failed to follow through after the crimes were reported, even though suspects were known in all but six cases.”

More details;

Yeah, tom, it all hyperbole.



Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 26, 2012 11:27 PM
Comment #345401

Read it and weep RM:

“The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office cold case posse consists of 40 non-compensated (volunteer) members, many of whom have professional law enforcement backgrounds.”

“Arpaio said by instituting a posse it will not cost the taxpayers any money to investigate the matter and because the posse will be working directly under his supervision, it will have full subpoena power.”

“Arpaio has crimes committed by criminals here in Maricopa County he isn’t investigating, such as multiple child abuse cases in El Mirage that were under his jurisdiction when they were committed.”

Since RM lives in AZ, I can understand his comments since he has an ax to grind. RM was probably part of the recall Sheriff Arpio agenda.

Let me suggest something SD, I mean RM; why don’t you just vote Arpio out. Instead of all the blather about how corrupt he is. That is, if you can; my guess is that most of AZ likes their sheriff.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 26, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #345404


““Arpaio said by instituting a posse it will not cost the taxpayers any money to investigate the matter…”

The sheriff’s office (the taxpayers) is paying for the trip and is expecting to be “reimbursed” Joe’s words, not mine, by the posse.

“Since RM lives in AZ, I can understand his comments since he has an ax to grind. RM was probably part of the recall Sheriff Arpaio agenda.”

Again you assume. I have no axe to grind with Arpaio, other than the blatant hypocrisy shown by him and his supporters, the tea party.

You guys find some sick pleasure in debasing people. You don’t want to debate you want to degrade. You want it all your way. There will be no compromise, because compromise is a sign of weakness.

Sorry to be the one to inform you, but our country was built on compromise and debate and the totalitarian, “my or the highway” attitude of the tea party isn’t what America is about.

Joe gets re-elected by morons because he puts inmates in pink underwear, houses them in tents, and feeds them green baloney sandwiches.

Yet the crimes still go on, and Joe only picks the fights that will bring him the most publicity…


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 27, 2012 12:08 AM
Comment #345405


I can’t decide if you and tom are trying to insult Stephen or me.

You guys have no problem at all being insulting, but let anyone so much as point a finger at you and the whining is incessant.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 27, 2012 12:26 AM
Comment #345406

I think you insist on transparent rhetorical traps. Yes, Obama spent that much money. Unfortunately, you’re addressing spending, especially the minimally grown spending, as if spending itself were a right or wrong choice.

The real question is what we get for the money.

By the way, waste and fraud in the food stamp program isn’t costing taxpayers 75 billion. Whoever told you that misread that item, because that’s the Food Stamp programs’s budget. 750 million is what the taxpayers are on the line for, in terms of fraud in that program, or 1%.

As far as flying on Air Force One? God what subjective horsecrap. What do you define as unnecessary? What’s your criteria? Just what effect do just the President’s vehicles have on the overall balance of things?

I guess, losing your talking point about EXPLODING outlays, you’ve got to switch to something equally loaded. Candidate Obama is already President Obama. It might be convenient to you if Obama didn’t campaign, but he will. And no, he won’t be flying coach to his next function or rally. If it’s not fault finding about one thing, it’s about another.

I’m going to deal with the rest tomorrow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2012 12:41 AM
Comment #345412

What is unecessary Stephen, Flying to Ca. to have a fund raiser with a bunch of rich movie stars that are part of the 1% that YOUR PEOPLE loath but gladly hold your hand out when election time comes. Campaigning for a sitting President should be charged for fuel cost for Air Force One at least because campaigning isn’t part of the job. Stephen do you really know how many peoplesell their staps for cash every month? Tell you what go to the grocery stores around the first two weeks of the month at least here where I live and you will be surprised at how many people will offer to let you use their stamp card for cash. Yea I’m addressing spending something that should be addressed.

Posted by: KAP at May 27, 2012 9:25 AM
Comment #345414

Go to the grocery store and watch the food stamp recipients hawk their stamps in front of the store? Do the carry signs saying food stamps for sale?

Some people do sell some of their food stamps, to family members, store owners and drug dealers. How many do this, no one knows, not Stephen, not Kap, no one. Is it a big problem or a small problem? No one knows.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2012 10:12 AM
Comment #345446

Care to have this discussion with some facts involved?

Whatever accusation you can lay on Obama, say that he has well-heeled supporters, I can counter with juicy things like “88% of Mitt Romney’s donations come from large donors, while only 57% make up Obama’s.”

Romney only has 12% of his money coming from small donors, while Obama has 44% (yes, that doesn’t precisely line up, but There’s an explanation there on the site itself.

The point would be, Romney’s making his appeals to the 1% to a much more profound degree. Were I to exist in a perfect, pure universe, I would find everybody wanting, but since I’m looking for better instead of perfect, I can live with having a candidate who’s not seven times more beholding to the 1%ers than he is to everybody else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #345447


On those 32 charges of child molestation, how many of those making the accusations refused to talk or finger point? How many had any basis for the charges? I believe there were some that had validity. But give me some evidence that those who made the charges had some reason to make those charges. You can’t just make up those things and call them fact.

On those re-imbursement of fees in HI, those all come from private funds. According to the record there have been no re-imbursement of those fees by anybody to the Sheriff.


Posted by: tom humes at May 27, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #345448


I think it is a joke the way you play fast and loose with numbers. Does this qualify you to be a mathematician? You add numbers to look like two plus three equals nine and think people can see the truth in that. What you don’t understand, whether you say so or not, is that your math is like the math the Congress, the President, the Czars, and so on use to come to conclusions. Just say it aint so, Joe, I mean Steve


Posted by: tom humes at May 27, 2012 4:30 PM
Comment #345449

tom humes-
I stand by my arguments and my numbers. Where they concern speculation, I label them as such. I am fully willing to disclose how I processed the data.

You? You say I’m wrong, but cite no particular instance, offer no particular insight as to how my math was bad. I think people who malign other people’s work ought to have to explain why those other people are wrong.

You don’t do that. You simply claim my math is wrong, but I doubt whether you’ve even taken much of a look at the OMB records at all. Until you do, I’m just going to dismiss your arguments as the lazy boilerplate talking points they are. I’ve put too much effort into actually learning this information for myself to let your baseless contempt go unanswered.

Of course, your response to this will probably be to play the victim, claiming I’m being an elitist with you. Well, sorry, but I think everybody should be encouraged to make evidence-based arguments, rather than depend upon some political doctrine or talking points meant to disengage rational thought. Evidence democratizes credibility, makes it to where the merits of your argument are decided upon the merits of your argument. Everybody has the opportunity to learn, if they put their mind to it. Your failure to do so should not be a point of pride.

Go back and look at the OMB records, and have the guts to give me an honest, analytical basis for your claim, rather than simply claiming for some unknown reason that I’m wrong.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #345450

So Stephen what has that got to do with Obama spendinding 3.5 Trillion per year as President? I could care less where Obama or Romney get their money from. I was just saying His flying out to Ca. on Air Force One to get money from Rich movie stars. It’s the use of Air Force One to campaign with on my dime that I’m concerned about. He should be made to pay for the fuel costs from those campaign funds. Any president making trips that aren’t Government business should be made to pay for fuel cost on that Plane. Maybe then they wouldn’t take so many vacations.

Posted by: KAP at May 27, 2012 7:10 PM
Comment #345451
You? You say I’m wrong, but cite no particular instance, offer no particular insight as to how my math was bad. I think people who malign other people’s work ought to have to explain why those other people are wrong.

It’s really clear that they never do, Stephen. And for pity’s sake, I get so bored with it, too. It’s the reason why I abandon WB for long periods now. I really miss the old days when we had people who at least knew how to debate (where are they?), people who at least made an attempt to debate (even though folks on the left usually gutted them). But no, we come here, trying to be as honest as we can be — even try to cut slack now and then knowing full well they’re coming from the opposite direction and don’t like to dig very deeply into anything that might (does) disprove their claims. But still, we provide them with hard facts and statistics (which clearly have a liberal bias) and pffft! they’ve got absolutely nothing — just a bunch of obnoxious grade school worthy insults.
So frustrating. So boring. No fun.

Rocky my friend, I direct all of the above to you, too.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is SO f**king loathsome in every way it is possible for a human being to BE loathsome. I wasn’t even surprised by the fact that he’s been ignoring child abuse — the man is the lowest of human garbage. That’s no exageration — the man has posed for photos with well-known Neo Nazi Scumbags, has gotten away with that in Arizona, and makes no apologies for it whatsoever.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 27, 2012 7:55 PM
Comment #345455

tom humes,

“But give me some evidence that those who made the charges had some reason to make those charges. You can’t just make up those things and call them fact.”

Gee tom, it appears there wasn’t even an investigation done by Arpaio’s sheriffs office. They had the responsibility to do so.
It seems to me that with a proper investigation by those responsible to do so, we might all have the answers to the questions you pose.

The interviews with those involved are included in the “New Times” link I provided.


JT Ready, one of the men identified in the article you linked, has been accused in a murder/suicide that took place on May 3rd here in AZ;

It has also been said that he was an associate of Sen Russel Pearce, the author of AZ SB 1070.

Go figure.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 27, 2012 9:51 PM
Comment #345456


“Of course, your response to this will probably be to play the victim, claiming I’m being an elitist with you.”

Just another day at the forum while being wrong again. You just keep on cranking out those phony numbers, just like the government does. Do you think anybody but you believe those numbers?


What you have done is make the charge that over 60% of the Maricopa Co. citizens are Nazi endorsers. What a shame for you to make that charge. I don’t know who you are talking about and I really don’t care. The claim you will make is bogus. You can take all that left-wing, socialist crap and shove it where the sun don’t shine in your California looney state. BTW have you ever heard a loon? They sound nice but act ugly. It would be nice for you to use the opinion rule while spouting that hate filled, foul mouthed garbage.


Posted by: tom humes at May 27, 2012 9:59 PM
Comment #345461

I didn’t think tomhumes could stick his head that far up where the sun don’t shine. I stand corrected.

Posted by: Jeff at May 27, 2012 11:07 PM
Comment #345476


“I didn’t think”

I agree.


“It has also been said that he was an associate of Sen Russel Pearce, the author of AZ SB 1070.”

Talk is cheap. Those kind of accusations just don’t fly. Being an “associate”? Balderdash.

Sen Pearce was a sponsor of the bill, not the author.


Posted by: tom humes at May 28, 2012 3:02 AM
Comment #345479

Sorry I wasn’t able to respond to the liberal BS yesterday; I was playing in a rich old white man’s golf scramble. And by the way, our team came in first place.

Re/ Adrienne’s call for the good old days on WB: “It’s the reason why I abandon WB for long periods now. I really miss the old days when we had people who at least knew how to debate (where are they?), people who at least made an attempt to debate (even though folks on the left usually gutted them).”

As far back as I can remember (at least 10 to 12 years of reading and commenting on WB; all I ever remember is Adrienne’s un-ladylike, foul language rants and links to the most liberal blog sites as evidence of her ignorant comments.

Re/Stephen’s comments; he has always been the water by for every liberal politician. It has been said by others on WB, “if Stephen can’t dazzle people with brilliance, he will baffle them with bullshit”. Most of SD’s are BS and in the case of this post, it is nothing more than the fake BS numbers of Obama and his surrogates. Stephen is on the daily talking points call list of the Obama admin.

R/ RM’s comments on Arpio; he has an ax to grind, wants to see Sheriff Arpio booted out of office, but certainly does not have the support of the rest of the good people of AZ to support him. To that I say, thank God for levelheaded, conservative, American patriots. If the 20% of Americans were actually 99%, our country would be doomed.

Re/mean spirited, hate filled, personal attacks; the left wrote the book on this topic. It’s fine for them to launch personal attacks on the “enemies”, but listen to the whining and crying when it comes back on them. “Oh, for the old days when there was compromise”, meaning, when conservatives let liberals have their way. Those days are gone; get over it. The TP has had enough of “moderate” RHINO’s; we will slowly boot their sorry asses out.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 28, 2012 9:53 AM
Comment #345480


“To that I say, thank God for levelheaded, conservative, American patriots.”

Yeah, that’s just what we need. More “patriots” like Arpaio that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in lawsuits for his policies.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 28, 2012 10:43 AM
Comment #345483
“Oh, for the old days when there was compromise”, meaning, when conservatives let liberals have their way. Those days are gone; get over it. The TP has had enough of “moderate” RHINO’s; we will slowly boot their sorry asses out.

Bill thanks for your honesty. I wonder where you were at when C&J was trying to convince me I was wrong about the conservatives of today and the German people of the late ‘20’s and early ‘30’s. You have shown us that fascism is the driving force behind the Tea Party and the Tea Party followers are in fact similar to those that fell for the same rhetoric back in Germany as Hitler rose to power.

Any time there is no room for comprise in politics and Alan Simpson of WY is a RINO we know extremism has overtaken the weaker minds in our country. The conservatives have put ideology above country for years now and despite the failures of conservatism are now riding the BS into the far right extremism of fascism. At least you are honest about it, most others are still deluded or disingenuous on the issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 28, 2012 11:13 AM
Comment #345489

Yesterday, a friend I go to a specialized website to sell jewelry, she said that silver jewelry inside, quite beautiful, but the price is not expensive, so I went to looked at, still a lot of varieties of the inside of the jewelryare high imitation brand products, so cheap, but also, if things really buy the real brand, it is estimated to be very, very expensive, I may be reluctant to finally pick a necklaceanti-of Guess Necklace.UBN 80811 Guess love heart pendant necklace on beaded chain sell $11 I think it is really beautiful, it is suitable for wear.

Posted by: lindaai at May 28, 2012 11:29 AM
Comment #345495

tom humes-
The numbers aren’t phony, they’re public record, or derived from such by reasonable methods. You’re still denying their truth without justifying the denial. The link to the records is in my original source, so why don’t you stop wasting our time here?

As for hate filled garbage mouths? Do yourself a favor, and don’t read your own posts. Has it dawned on you how many arguments you try to win by appealing to a negative view of liberals?

Look, that budget got to about that level of spending before Obama got in the door, and I can explain why in simple terms, as I already have. Obama’s made further commitments to reduce spending against the wishes of many of his constituents, on account of Republicans forcing the matter with the Debt Ceiling crisis.

The Republicans have declined to raise taxes as a matter of course, despite the fact that they’re insisting austerity is necessary. In fact, many of their new plants go right back to the failed tax cut plans.

On and on it goes. Their policy failed, but nobody’s allowed to do differently. Austerity’s allowed few if any countries in this climate to climb out of their economic holes, but still they insist on it.

So, quit acting like Obama’s a spendaholic. He’s much more willing to address spending cuts than Republicans are to address raising revenues. He’s been flexible, they haven’t. They’ve insisted that the military be spared cuts, even though the agreement they made in 2011 was predicated on the fact that if the supercommittee didn’t come up with something, everybody’s ox would be gored.

You’re buying into a line of propaganda whose basic purpose is to keep Republicans looking good on a subject they’re actually terrible on, and more to blame. It isn’t easy, or always wise to cut spending, especially in times of economic crisis, but unfortunately, some people don’t have the flexibility to consider policy on a substantive, rather than doctrinal basis.

Isn’t it odd that I present hard evidence, and all of a sudden the verbal long knives come out?

I wonder, if you took out the partisan stuff, how much would be left of what you’re writing here?

The averages I quote can be derived simply:
1) First, I downloaded the excel spreadsheet file. Those have the budget figures for the past few decades. I looked at the other presidencies.
2) I took the primary budget outlays column, and I identified my starting point, which would be about 1977. I subtracted the new year from the year before it.
3) Then I took the difference, and divided it by the previous year, giving me a percent difference between the year before and the year in question.
4) I then used the Excel SUM function to add up the percentages, and divided them by however many years were in question. That yielded the average.

As far as I can tell, you talk about objections to math, but I just think you really want to object to my numbers on sight, so that others don’t trust them. That’s how you’ve learned to argue: by discrediting people, sources, not by analysing or researching. You rest much of your efforts on rhetoric and emotional button-pushing.

Trouble is, the facts are against you here, and the only thing you can think to call to your aid is people’s anti-liberal bias. That, to me, lays to rest the source of your objections: you simply don’t like what the evidence tells you, and you’re looking for excuses to feed people so Democrats don’t win. When everything comes down to competitiveness, beating the other guy, the truth is often a first casuality. The budget won’t be balanced by people who can’t even acknowledge the facts of where the numbers are, and where they aren’t.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2012 4:53 PM
Comment #345496

Stephen, That budget was the last one offered up by YOUR PEOPLE, and one that Obama asked for before taking office and Bush gave him so no Obama is a spendaholic and BS on the spending cuts he wants to raise taxes so he can spend more. The only one who’s buying into propaganda IS YOU. I don’t trust any President who wants to raise taxes and not cut spending even where it hurts and makes him the bad guy and I don’t give a rats behind if he republican or democrat. So Stephen when YOUR PEOPLE can take the the bull by the horn and make the necessary decisions even when it hurts then and only then will they have my respect. Till then the only thing democrats are good for is tax and spend.

Posted by: KAP at May 28, 2012 5:41 PM
Comment #345498


There are a myriad of Excel spreadsheets available for anybody to use. The trouble is they are all different. The one you use fits your argument.

Now on the matter of censorship. Shove it.


Posted by: tom humes at May 28, 2012 5:57 PM
Comment #345507

“Bill thanks for your honesty. I wonder where you were at when C&J was trying to convince me I was wrong about the conservatives of today and the German people of the late ‘20’s and early ‘30’s. You have shown us that fascism is the driving force behind the Tea Party and the Tea Party followers are in fact similar to those that fell for the same rhetoric back in Germany as Hitler rose to power.”

Pray tell us j2t2, when was the last time you voted for one of these RHINO’s you live so much. I’ll tell you what; why don’t you clean the socialists out of your party and we’ll clean the RHINO’s out of ours.

Isn’t it odd that I present hard evidence, and all of a sudden the verbal long knives come out?

I wonder, if you took out the partisan stuff, how much would be left of what you’re writing here?”

Well I don’t know Stephen, when was the last time one of your lengthy rants were bipartisan? I don’t remember.

Re/your hard evidence; I know your joking…your evidence is Obama daily talking points.

The last Federal Budget was for 2009, would Stephen Daugherty like to tell us who signed this 2009 budget?

Would Stephen Daugherty like to explain to us the process of Base Line Budgeting?

Perhaps Stephen Daugherty could tell us the last time a Democratic controlled Senate passed a Federal Budget?

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 28, 2012 10:16 PM
Comment #345508

Re/bipartisanship: come to think of it Stephen Faugherty, why don’t you give us an example of anything you have ever written that was bipartisan? I don’t believe you have ever written anything that wasn’t defending liberal policies. In others words, you are nothing more than a socialist political hack.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 28, 2012 10:22 PM
Comment #345515

tom humes-
The trouble is, they’re all different? I chose one in particular.
This one.

And I got that at the end of my source’s link. This is not some dumbass conspiracy. This is a simple, primary source which , if you have the math skills to critique my math skills, you should have the skills to understand. All it is is the budget summary of our nation’s revenues and spending since 1789.

Again, you are completely vague on even the specific errors involved. It’s just more spin, more ways to deny the same thing: the numbers that say that Obama is not growing spending like people like you have claimed.

The information to verify my claims is there, and the math, for the most part, is just middle school. The only thing complicating this is your side’s political paranoia, imagining a million things behind the obvious but failing to see the obvious for what it is.

First of all, Clinton already did that, so we have nothing to prove. Second, is this time to take spending by the horns? Third, if it is, who do you think has better claim to keeping spending under control, a party whose most recent success on this matter was keeping spending just about level, or the folks who, when they were totally in charge, went on the spending spree that constitutes nearly all the increase in the last decade, spending-wise? Before you say it was just us, consider that in the Six budgets your side produced with Bush in charge, the rate of change was well over six percent per year on average. The last two budgets?

Well, I was wondering whether you noticed the huge economic panic that dropped in Congress’s lap.

The real bitch of this is, your side has taken necessary financial recovery spending, and made a moronic talking point out of it, as if spending to keep the banking system from collapsing is somehow just like putting two wars, a medicaid drug benefit, a boondoggle Medicare Advantage program, and a tax cut for the rich all on the national credit card. It’s sickening.

Meanwhile, we’ve behaved with far more discipline, even in the years where we were the unquestioned majority!

But no, you want to play the blame game, because you’re used to the idea of playing false equivalences. Has it occured to you that you might be better advised to figure out what’s gone wrong with Republican fiscal policy that they can’t keep a balanced budget with a Republican in the White House? I think a big part of Republican’s problems with the budget stem from the overconfidence of the politicians that they can make these things work.

Whatever the cause, I will take those who can be disciplined, effective, efficient in their approach, over those who simply think they’re the best.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2012 11:15 PM
Comment #345516

You forget Stephen, Clinton had a republican congress. Otherwise he would have been a tax and apend democrat if the congress he started with was in power, much like the current one, the only difference Clinton knew how to work with people, this one don’t. The only moronic talking points come out of your posts. Disipline My A$$, YOUR PEOPLE don’t know the meaning of the word. Your last sentence is a joke isn’t it please, please tell me it is because I can’t stop laughing.

Posted by: KAP at May 28, 2012 11:28 PM
Comment #345517

If you define bipartisan your way, that is, me agreeing with you regardless of what my principles may be, then no. But I’m on the record plenty of times being okay with grand bargains and imperfect compromises, like the Debt Ceiling, even though I thought a different fiscal approach was necessary. I have no illusions about the need for negotiation in a democratic republic like ours.

Only problem is, a person like me doesn’t have many willing partners on your side, thanks to people like you.

You expect everybody to run things like this is a one-party system, like the Commies do in China, or the Ba’aths did in Iraq.

As far as the 2009 budget is concerned, Bush submitted it, and signed it into law.

Now, if you want an interesting idea of what happened with this, why this became the first trillion dollar defict, don’t bother looking at Obama on this subject. The original request was for 400 billion dollars less spending, and 600 billion more revenue. The deficit was supposed to be about 407 billion, but add 400 billion more spending, then 600 billion, and, voila, 1400 billion dollars in deficit. This was a spending plan, by the way, which starts in October 2008, and goes to September 2009

I know, I know, if I quote a number I’m just trying to confuse you, or spread liberal misinformation. No need for you to establish I’m wrong, how or why, just everybody taking your word for things.

I don’t like people who think they can walk between the rain drops on actually offering a rational argument. You don’t seem to really address the issue. If the numbers are right, mine or theirs, then your favorite talking point is wrong. Can’t have that, can we? Then people might be able to megaditto all the time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2012 11:37 PM
Comment #345532

Stephen, are you just an idiot or are you trying to change history?

“As far as the 2009 budget is concerned, Bush submitted it, and signed it into law.”

AP - “Calling it an “imperfect” bill, President Barack Obama signed a $410 billion spending package Wednesday that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year’s campaign. He insisted the bill must signal an “end to the old way of doing business.”

The massive measure supporting federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, earmarked by sponsors though denounced by critics.

Obama defended earmarks when they’re “done right,” allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they’ve been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them.

“I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it’s necessary for the ongoing functions of government,” Obama declared. “But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.”

In fact Stephen, you can the whole article (on liberal MSNBC) and look at all the lies Obama said at the time of the signing. By the way Stephen, who was in control of the Congress and Senate when this bill was passed?

Sorry Stephen, I have to stand with KAP; your numbers are BS. Why would anyone want to try to debate this subject with you; you’re like your messiah, you just pull numbers out of your rectum.

The only one confused is you.

Posted by: Billibflorida at May 29, 2012 7:21 AM
Comment #345533

“You forget Stephen, Clinton had a republican congress. Otherwise he would have been a tax and apend democrat if the congress he started with was in power,..”


This mantra that it was a Republican controlled Congress that fiscally disciplined Clinton leaves out two important details: his multi-year Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed by a Democrat controlled Congress without a single Republican vote and that when Republicans gained control (Bush election) of both the executive and legislative branches, all fiscal discipline was abandoned.

Posted by: Rich at May 29, 2012 7:26 AM
Comment #345534

Bush signed it.

Note the date it’s mean to fund things through: Oct 1,2009.

In other words, the 2009 budget.

This was the 2010 budget you were talking about. The recent budget where outlays were less than the year before. You start out asking, “are you an idiot or just trying to change history.”

Lousy choice of words, if you ask me, because your assertions both contradict history, by switching the 2010 budget with the 2009, and vice versa, and your statements and implications are factually bankrupt.

You think you know what’s going on, but like so many unfortunate people tuned in to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, you’re worse than ill-informed, you’re completely out of the loop as far as what’s really going on.

I’m not pulling anything out of my ass, Bill. It’s you, and whoever fed you this terrible information.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’ve demonstrated that right here.

The Democrats seem better at constraining their spending when it’s just them and a Democrat in the White House than the Republicans are when it’s just them and their guy.

You pretend to be balanced, yet it seems like everything has to be a Democrat’s fault, or Democrats have to be equally bad. We’re not, and you want to know why? Because we’re vulnerable to criticism. We don’t ignore it when people say “You’re spending too much” In fact, our politicians find it easier to be scared by that, than by the prospect that we might be pushing policies that are too cheap to raise us from our economic sickbed.

We don’t need budget policy to be decided by unthinking doctrines, we need to adapt to the issues at hand. American needs jobs back if it’s not going to run long term deficits into the forseeable future. America needs the rich paying what they need to pay so we’re leaving less burden to the people who can’t pay it now, and less of a legacy of debt and lost opportunity to our children.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 8:47 AM
Comment #345535
Pray tell us j2t2, when was the last time you voted for one of these RHINO’s you live so much.

Why Bill would this make the least bit of difference? But to answer your question it was in 2008.

I’ll tell you what; why don’t you clean the socialists out of your party and we’ll clean the RHINO’s out of ours.

First of all the dems aren’t my party. The problem with your illogical request is cleaning out the RINO’s would leave only the fascist tea party which is the problem to begin with. The very same people many have warned us about.

“when fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and carrying a cross” to which I add “while wearing a tri-corner hat adorned with tea bags”

The refusal to compromise, especially on failed ideology such as that spouted by conservatives in general and Tea Party leaders in particular, is very telling Billinfla. Again thank you for your honesty. Purge your party of the un-pure Bill, those that would compromise. Include only the most extremist conservatives that repeat the conservative dogma without fail.

“Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindliness in favor of systematic hatred” - Bertrand Russell , Unpopular essays

Posted by: j2t2 at May 29, 2012 9:51 AM
Comment #345540

Stephen your pipe dreaming again Democrats are better at constraining their spending. Clinton started with a democrat congress and did better when republicans took over same thing with Obama except he won’t work with them like Clinton did. No Stephen everything don’t need to be democrats fault same way with republicans. YOU are the one who has a problem with blame according to you democrats are gods and can do NO wrong. YOUR PEOPLE had a chance to start out with economy and jobs 3.5 years ago but decided HCR was more important. The problem was YOUR PEOPLE didn’t listen to their constituents they think they know what’s best for us little people. This type attitude is what is contributing to YOUR PEOPLE’s downfall and favorability. At your age I was a democrat until liberals took over.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 10:57 AM
Comment #345558

Stephen, are you just plain stupid or are you trying to play games? You provide a link that says Bush signed a “continuing resolution”, a continuing resolution is not an Appropriations Bill or a Budget:

“The national government’s budget calendar runs from October 1st through September 30th of each year. Each federal department, agency and program is authorized to spend congressionally specified amounts of money. That money cannot be spent, however, unless it is explicitly appropriated for a given purpose. For example, an agency might be authorized to spend $2 billion on a program, but it does not actually have that money to spend until it is appropriated for that program.

Each year, the Congress must pass and the President must sign 13 separate appropriations bills by October 1st to fund all of the national government’s departments, agencies and programs for the following year. If the Congress and President fail to pass all of the appropriations bills, there will be some agencies and programs that do not have the money appropriated to them that they are authorized to spend. In other words, there will be no money to spend on some legally established programs and national government functions.

In most instances, the Congress and the President will agree to a Continuing Resolution which temporarily funds the programs and agencies for which appropriations bills have not been passed. A Continuing Resolution (CR) must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Generally, a CR funds agencies or programs for a month or two at the same funding level as the previous year. The main purpose of a CR is to keep the government running long enough for the Congress and President to work out an agreement on all 13 appropriations bills. Currently (on November 8, 1999), the national government is functioning under a Continuing Resolution while the President and Congress work out their differences on the remaining appropriations bills”

“On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent.”

“Although FY 2009 begins tomorrow, most federal departments and agencies will likely have to wait until March to find out what their new budgets will be. In the meantime, under a bill passed by the House and Senate and now awaiting the signature of President Bush, spending will continue at the current rate until March 6, 2009.

Following several months of a budget stand-off between Congress and President Bush, agreement was reached on a continuing resolution to provide five months of flat funding for most departments and agencies, and $600 billion in full year funding for the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs, and for military construction. H.R. 2638 is a 67,000 word bill, in which the following words for most federal departments and agencies are key:\

“Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2008 … for continuing projects or activities … that were conducted in fiscal year 2008… .”

“In light of an imminent government shut-down as result of delays in passing last year’s appropriations bills, Congress has passed and President Obama has signed a continuing resolution to maintain the prior year’s funding levels through Wednesday while negotiations continue on last year’s budget work. The Office of the Press Secretary has just issued the following bill announcement:

On Friday, March 6, 2009, the President signed into law:

H.J.Res. 38, which provides FY 2009 appropriations for continuing projects and activities of the Federal Government through Wednesday, March 11, 2009. The Federal Government was currently funded under Public Law 110-329, the “Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009” which was due to expire March 6, 2009, at midnight. By signing this resolution, it allows additional time for the Congress to complete action on H.R. 1105, the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which provides funding for the nine remaining FY 2009 appropriations bills that have yet to be enacted.”

Tell us again Stephen, when was the last time the Dem controlled Senate passed a budget? You can spin this any way you want, but this economy belongs to your messiah. Why don’t you provide us with a Federal link that says Bush signed the FY 2009 Federal Budget Appropriations Bill?

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 29, 2012 11:35 AM
Comment #345559

We started out with a 700 billion dollar economic stimulus bill, the largest of its type to date, in order to revive the jobs market, and prevent further unemployment. Even that Republicans resisted, with only three exceptions in the Senate, only one of which will make it past 2012, thanks to the party’s backlash against them. In fact, part of the reason we could legislate at all is that you pushed Arlen Specter, however briefly, into the Democratic Party.

Ironically, the departure of Olympia Snowe could mean the Senate remains in Democratic hands, but I guess that’s par for the course.

Your side has forced more cloture votes than any other minority in the Senate in American history, going on a filibuster frenzy, resulting in a casualty rate of 80% in legislation coming from the House. Don’t talk to me about cooperation, because I never saw Republicans willingly back down on any of those obstructions.

Your people had plenty of chances to make deals, plenty of chances to force alterations. That’s what used to be done by Democrats with the Republicans, when they issued their filibuster threats. It used to be the start of negotiation, not the essential death of a bill. But that’s what it’s become, to the point where the media talks about their needing to be sixty votes to pass something in the Senate.

You can jam your caps-lock throwing back my accusations back at me, in the typical “I’m rubber, you’re glue” fashion, but the facts demonstrate that Democrats were willing to negotiate, and make significant alterations to bills (including making tax cuts a bit part of the stimulus, instead of making more infrastructure spending), while the Republicans basically said no to everything.

Why do we have to indulge you and yours like that to be consider bipartisan? Why? Bipartisan is supposed to mean that we compromise, but to Republicans, it means just giving you everything that you want, or not bringing up certain bills at all. If being bipartisan means not doing any spending to help Americans get back on their feet, or our industries get a leg up, if being bipartisan means not continuing to give benefits to the long term unemployed, who aren’t to blame for the jobs deficit in the economy, if being bipartisan means joining the Republicans in being blind to the fiscal effects of an excessively costly defense department and an ill-advised tax cut, then what’s the point? Bipartisan means to most Republicans that the Democrats act just like Republicans, only to be picked off later in elections, pinched between disgruntled constituents, and Republicans who weren’t going to vote for Democrats anyways.

No thanks, many of them are saying. What’s the point of just catering to your side’s political goals, if we’re not going to get one benefit from it?

Your pipe dream is that this can be maintained forever. Unfortunately for you, the Tea Party can’t rage forever without descending into tired irrelevance, as our Republic forces its compromises on them, and the right cannot avoid the reckoning for its mistakes and misapprehensions Sooner or later, somebody, if not us, will come along and push the Republicans down the decline their policies are ensuring.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 11:50 AM
Comment #345561

Stephen, What Obama did didn’t work. He promissed unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%, for 36 weeks unemployment has been above 8%. Stephen I am NOT a republican or a democrat. I will vote for who I think can do the better job. Obama is a community organizer and should have remained one. As far as I’m concerned congress should be cleaned out and get rid of the old dead weight there, the career politicians who care more about their job then who they represent and it goes for both parties. Stephen like I said you have the blame problem with your Democrats are gods and can do no wrong and everything is the fault of republicans. Republicans have messed up. I didn’t vote for Bush nor Gore or Kerry nor did I vote for the first Bush, I voted for Clinton and would have voted democrat if YOUR PEOPLE weren’t so stupid putting an unknown opportunist on the ticket. To bad Hillary didn’t run as an independent. Like I said at least she had an experienced advisor by her side. This guy is a joke and worse than Jimmy was, and unfortunitly I voted for that peanut head.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #345563

By the way Arlen Spector is a party jumper and goes to which ever will win him votes, but the last time backfired on him didn’t it Stephen.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 12:50 PM
Comment #345588

Nice Try, but no cigar. We’re both right, but if we’re talking about who okayed the spending? You’re still screwed.

This is very clever of course, since few people out in the public understand how federal budgeting works, but the fact is that the spending that occurred during the 2009 fiscal year is almost totally the result of appropriations bills signed by George W. Bush during the 2008 calendar year. By shifting Bush’s 2009 spending to Obama, one can then understate the amount of federal spending authorized by Bush while inflating the spending authorized by Obama. This then helps perpetuate the myth that one party is more “responsible” with taxpayer funds than the other party.

This is from The Ludwig Von Mises Institute, a fairly libertarian organization. Of course, you’ll find a reason to spin it as the left wing of the Communist Internationale, given the fact that it contradicts you.

Yes, Obama signed a budget in 2009. And, Bush signed the esential elements of the budget the year before. And then, with the Senate, House, and White House entirely under Obama’s control, They passed a budget for 2010. Then With a lot of belly-aching from the Republicans, who blocked timely passage of a budget bill twice in order to set up an irresponsible Government shutdown the next year, We passed last year’s Budget.

Then we passed the 2012 budget, as part of the Debt Ceiling deal. Note that the main impediments here aren’t Democrats failing to do their jobs, but Republicans, trying to pull political stunts. Why that entitles Republicans to savage Democrats is beyond me.

Democrats haven’t stalled and joined together to filibuster their own bills. At worse, a few outliers have joined the Republican Party in making problems for us in the Senate. The Republicans, though, have more or less put themselves in the position of trying to block just about any activity they don’t like, while taking vital processes like budgeting and debt-ceiling increases, and using them as hostage-taking opportunities to get what they want.

But you want to blame us for the dysfunction. Riiiight.

That’s my gripe. Your people have done next to nothing useful for the country since you lost power. Rather than try and rebuild your records on good programs and good policies, rather than try and leave the corrupt, wasteful legacy of the Bush Administration behind, your people have surged back trying to force every hint of change from that to stop.

But really, what happens when you succeed?

I think what’s happened before. We were looking at annual increases in spending, with the GOP and Bush together in power, averaging well over 6% a year. You didn’t need our help to do this, you did it yourselves.

But you can’t own up to this, because then there’s no incentive to vote Republican on fiscal matters. The claims of fiscal conservatism are basically a lie. And they are.

The new lie is if we elect Republicans to control everything, we’ll see the deficits go away. We won’t. Even Ryan’s vaunted plan doesn’t do away with the deficits for three decades down the road, while in the meantime debt piles up. The GOP will continue “job creator” tax cuts that don’t create jobs and aggravate the deficits, they’ll continue to cut programs that benefit the average person, and the economy will continue to linger in this grey purgatory, which Republicans apparently are arrogant enough to believe they won’t be held accountable for.

But your people will, sooner or later.

As for your first question? I’m tempted to respond in kind, but you know what? I can do better. I can demonstrate you are wrong, where you can only claim that I’m off-base.

The problem is, when you look to find the truth, convenient or inconvenient, you get a better background on things that those who only look for things to support their propaganda with. Those seeking support for propaganda only see so much, because they only want to win the next argument. Those who seek the truth, whatever it is, can see both the weaknesses and the strengths of what they are trying to say.

Your lack of an open mind, your insistence that you already know all you need to know is a weakness before an opponent like me, because I’m not merely looking for the right argument, I’m looking for the one that is right. I don’t want inconvenient follow ups, but you, you never think that far ahead. Yes, Obama signed the final results of the 2009 budget, but only after Bush signed most of the appropriations. That critical detail, and the fact that Obama’s budget is lower in 2010, undermines your argument that Obama bears the majority of the blame for the level of increased federal spending. The fact that the increases since then have been fairly low demonstrates that Obama is responsive to political forces calling for a slowdown on spending increases.

The question is, are you going to continue to insist on covering up your own party’s role in how far things have got, or will you actually learn the lesson of that time, and moderate your fiscal attitudes?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 1:31 PM
Comment #345589

You claim independence, but the first words out of your mouth are a typical Republican talking point about Obama being a community organizer, and that being negative.

I mean, really. If you’re caught up in the propaganda, you’re not thinking for yourself. If you’re just repeating what the GOP says about him, that just indicates to me that while you have no respect for the party as an institution, that you continue, aware or unaware, to allow it’s ideology to subvert your purported independence.

I don’t support Obama out of some idol-worship, I support him because he’s a lateral thinker, and because it would be a shame to waste such an intelligent, charismatic candidate. Believe me, I supported Gore and Kerry, so I was glad to finally have “wooden as a kitchen table” taken off the list of obvious attributes.

Meanwhile, Republicans have managed to follow the example of Democrats with John Kerry, only they’ve chosen somebody so lacking in conviction and honesty that even their own people can hardly stand him.

As for the rest? I guess the way I would put this is, I am not going to aid the Republicans in sliming my own people. I have had plenty of experience with the way Republicans try to turn obvious advantages of a candidate inside out, like their intelligence, their eloquence, and their evenhandedness. It would seem awful cowardly to give in to that kind of obvious, venal viciousness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 1:44 PM
Comment #345600

“Yes, Obama signed a budget in 2009. And, Bush signed the esential elements of the budget the year before. And then, with the Senate, House, and White House entirely under Obama’s control, They passed a budget for 2010. Then With a lot of belly-aching from the Republicans, who blocked timely passage of a budget bill twice in order to set up an irresponsible Government shutdown the next year, We passed last year’s Budget.

Then we passed the 2012 budget, as part of the Debt Ceiling deal. Note that the main impediments here aren’t Democrats failing to do their jobs, but Republicans, trying to pull political stunts. Why that entitles Republicans to savage Democrats is beyond me.” Stephen Daugherty

Well, I guess that’s about as close as we will ever get to SD admitting he was incorrect, however he continues with the lie by falsely claiming it was Bush’s 2009 budget. Correct me if I’m wrong (and this was brought out before with no response from SD), but wasn’t it the Democrats who sent a Budget to Bush? Much like the budgets sent by Obama to the last two Congresses, it was voted down, even by 100% of the Dems; we find Bush’s FY 2009 budget was butchered by the controlling Dems.

Mr. Daugherty goes on to imply there was a 2009, 2010, and 2012 Obama budget passed…incorrect, they were all continuing resolutions. Sorry Stephen, no cigar.

Tell us about base line budgeting Stephen???? And what part it plays in your Obama phantom budgets?

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 29, 2012 3:13 PM
Comment #345601

Stephen, tell us about the TARP that Obama asked Bush to give him. Tell us about the wasted stimulus, I and II?

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 29, 2012 3:16 PM
Comment #345604

Stephen Like I said I will bash a republican just as I bash Obama. So all because you are in love with Obama dosen’t mean I have to. No you don’t slime your own people even when they screw up, that’s the difference between you and me I don’t care who he or she is or what party they belong to if they don’t live up to the job they have they can get out and I will bash them as long as they are in office from the president on down. Obama is an opportunist, he was in Illinois and was when he was a U.S. Senator. You guys ran an unknown and now you can’t take the criticism of his failures or inexperience. The presidency is NOT an on the job training experience. Like I said you should have run Hillary, at least she had the experience by her side.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment #345606

KAP, if you remember, Hillary said Obama did not have the experience to be president. Something about getting the 3AM phone call.

You are dead on with SD, he wouldn’t complain about something Obama had done if his life depended on it.

It’s always someone else’s fault.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 29, 2012 5:39 PM
Comment #345608

I provide a source for why considering it substantially Obama’s budget is a misguided notion. It’s not even a liberal source, so I don’t see your problem.

As for who sent the budget to whom, Bush sent the budget to Congress. Congress made some changes, Bush didn’t approve them, but he did approve a hell of a lot of spending, AND it was a hell of a lot of spending to begin with:

The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bush’s original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.

This framework for calculating presidential spending should be applied generally to all presidential terms of office. It would be inaccurate and dishonest to attribute most 2001 federal spending to Bush, just as it would be wrong to attribute most 1993 spending to Clinton. Presidents can and do add to the budgets passed by their predecessors by signing supplemental appropriations bills early in their terms, but this can only account for a small portion of total spending that might occur during a president’s first year in office.

The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.

Again, this guy isn’t a liberal. I say that so you don’t even have your BS excuse for ignoring the other numbers I’ve presented. You simply do not want to acknowledge that a Republican President you likely defended to the hilt against the Democrats was responsible, instead of the Democrats in question.

As far as baseline budgeting goes, it simply means that you make your predictions about the budget going forward from the laws in effect now, and the anticipated economic activity in the next few years. This isn’t absolute, but rather a guide for budgeting in some kind of rational way.

You say that the continuing resolutions don’t constitute a budget. Well, they walk like a budget, talk like a budget and function like a budget, so they effectively are the budget. Wouldn’t be much point to them, legally speaking, otherwise. Democrats didn’t provoke a government shutdown with Bush. They’re not big fans of government dysfunction. Yours are the people who used the filibuster to prevent two timely omnibus bills, and then picked a fight over things the next year. Then you picked another fight with the Debt Ceiling debacle.

Besides, as of now, the budgeting process in the legislature is yours, and you’re failing at it continually. Either your party think it’s more important to engage in its uncertainty-driving political tactics, or it just can’t get its act together.

I mean, what does it say that your Tea Partiers couldn’t get the rest of the Republicans to back their play, that in each case, the GOP’s gotten backed into a corner where they’ve split off, and Boehner’s had to come looking to Democrats for votes? And now, your people are reneging on the debt ceiling deal, or trying to.

Nobody can count on your people for ****. Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs? Obama’s got a plan, what’s yours, beside the usual self serving labeling of your party agenda items as jobs bills (more tax cuts, more deregulation?)

Behind all your rhetoric is an inability to do anything else but keep on the attack. What happens if you give up? What happens if you don’t get what you want? How well can you handle failure?

Get used to it. People like me aren’t going to make anything easy for you, and because you won’t pick your fights intelligently, you’re going to exhaust yourself and people’s patience trying to make things controversial that are really quite easy to resolve.

In the end, your runaround is basically about distracting people from two things: That Bush grew spending relentlessly from his first day in office, and that Obama’s spending has been nothing like the explosion your side has described.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 5:45 PM
Comment #345609

3AM phone call?

You mean the one he made to Bin Laden?

Of course, you will minimize this. No credit, nor acknowledgment of any success, no vindication. You will try and win something you didn’t earn by sheer force of will.

And if you do win? I don’t think Republicans are prepared at all to govern. They’ll be too busy picking useless fights among themselves and screwing up to vindicate your self-absorbed rhetoric. If the last year and a half shows us what the Republican Party’s capable of, why bother? As mediocre as some of my people are, the GOP’s not an improvement.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #345610

Stephen, the best way I can explain your ability to defend Obama and his talking points is to link to Jay Carney stumbling for a coherent answer to a real reporter who asked a real question.

Like you Stephen, Jay’s answer is incoherent babble.

What is bamster’s plan Mr. Daugherty? The nearest I can figure, he wants 4 more years to finish what he started the first 4 years, which is?????? Obamacare, shut down more US energy, bail out more green companies, bail out more unions, pay more kickbacks to his bundlers and supporters, spend another $5 trillion….just tell us what he is going to do?

“Get used to it. People like me aren’t going to make anything easy for you, and because you won’t pick your fights intelligently, you’re going to exhaust yourself and people’s patience trying to make things controversial that are really quite easy to resolve.”

People like you spit on American troops when they came back from Vietnam, people like you protested at every liberal university until they were shot at Kent State, people like you lived in their own squalor at OWS protests, people like you don’t mean shit to me. You were the Tories who supported the British in the Revolutionary War; you were the opposers to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

You are history, you are a fart in the history of this country, and you represent 20% of the American people. You defend the defenseless, you carry the water for the oppressors, and thanks to your messiah, you will lose more seats in Congress and you will lose the Presidency. And then you will come back on WB and spew your hatred toward the new Republican President and Republican controlled House and Senate. You will never change.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 29, 2012 6:18 PM
Comment #345611

Stephen if it weren’t for the intel gathering of the presidents before Obama and I mean Bush and Clinton, Obama would have never got OBL. So it was on the sucess of his predessors that he got him so when you have a real accomplishment that you can refer to let us know. As far as the 3am call Hillary is right he wouldn’t know what to do. Stephen, Obama wasn’t prepared to govern, using community organizer skills to run a country is NOT being prepared. Hell he don’t even have anything to run on except bashing Romney. By the way tell us what accomplishments he will run on, HCR, failed stimulus, Solyndra this would be good, 8%+ enemployment, economy in the tank, hell even on MSNBC today on Matthews 2 commentators said of the economy flatlineing if it continues, unemployment stays the same, BYE BYE OBAMA. KEEP DEFENDING STEPHEN. O and by the way I’m a conservative, that does NOT mean I’m republican no more than you being a liberal makes you a COMMUNIST.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 6:55 PM
Comment #345615


“O and by the way I’m a conservative, that does NOT mean I’m republican no more than you being a liberal makes you a COMMUNIST.”

Wow, I want to thank you for the best laugh I have had in weeks.
How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?

You guys on the right need to understand that the folks on to left of you aren’t all liberals.

Perhaps, I can trot this out when your wingnut friends start up with the “librul” insults.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at May 29, 2012 8:00 PM
Comment #345618

If Obama can be scrutinized over the wholly unintentional failure (at least from the administration’s actions) of Solyndra, why can’t Romney be taken to task for his company taking out and profiting by millions of dollars of debt to enrich themselves, after which they shafted the shareholders of the companies and dumped their pension obligations onto the taxpayers?

Rush didn’t mention that, did he?

Your plan seems to be four more years of Bush policies. Four more years of pushing on the string of diminished consumer incomes with tax cuts that absolutely failed to lift Bush job creation from the bottom of the list of Presidents since truman. Four more years of naively hoping that if we let the big contribu- sorry, companies do whatever they want in the market, that they won’t screw up. Four more years of punishing the poor for a deficit more or less run up to benefit the rich, a reverse Robin Hood scheme that Republicans want people to be grateful for.

As for spitting on American troops? I never had that mindset, so it’s unfortunate that you resort to cheap, tawdry tactics. I recently buried a grandfather who parachuted into Normandy on D-Day. He was buried in his uniform. When I was little, I had an 82nd Airborne Shirt that I loved to wear, and in fact I have a school photo where I was wearing it!

You piss on just about everything Democrats like me are, but the sad thing is, we’re more alike than you would care to admit, and the stereotypes, at best, only represent a few of us with any accuracy. You could get agreement on so many things, but you’re stuck up to see past your own party lines. You believe all the nonsense that those desperate has-beens in the right-wing punditry feed you, and you probably feel a lot more scared about the future than I do.

It helps that while I think Republicans are largely misguided and thickheaded about somethings, that it’s more of a cultural thing they can get over than a long term, permanent… insanity, as you would put it?

I went to Baylor, so I know that conservatives can both defy and fulfill the stereotypes.

I don’t have to go down your litany of stupidly obvious vilification towards you. You are nothing more, and nothing less than my equal, an American citizen. I don’t have to destroy you to defeat you, you defeat yourself simply by thinking that you don’t have to reach out to other people, that you can simply reduce the GOP to a cariacature of itself, and throw out all but the pure, and continue to win.

Parties don’t win on purity, they win on synergy, getting more than just Republicans to come together with them to vote in their candidates. Your people might win a few, but then you will insist that all the policies are hardline policies, and all the Republicans live up to an impossible level of purity. You’re going to insist that Republicans refuse to compromise, and as such, when they don’t hold all the cards in government, Republican legislation will languish, good only for ginning up the primary voters.

And really, what is going on in the Republican party that will actually prevent it from making the same mistakes if it holds all the cards? So far, Republican leaders have shown no inclination to walk softly where angels fear to tread.

Your only advantage is that you’ve succeeded in emotionally exhausting Democrats. But there’s a difference between making people tired of politics, and changing their politics. Republicans depended on off year voter turnout, and they won’t get that this time.

I’m not saying we have a guaranteed win. That’s your sort of overconfidence. But you know what? We’re not going to make this easy, especially after your people start running at the mouth. You will perform excellently on our behalf by showing people just how extreme your side has gotten, and Barack Obama will do an excellent job, as he always has, of playing off of the clueless belligerence of the Right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 8:39 PM
Comment #345621

Rocky, Stephen is and the comment was for him maybe you guys on the left ought to know that all of us on the right are NOT republicans as Stephen so graciously thinks and not all wingnuts.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 9:24 PM
Comment #345622

The problem is, you rarely dispute what those on the far right say, so effectively you vote and speak little differently from one of them. If you want to be truly independent, you have to get outside the bubble of conservative bias.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 9:32 PM
Comment #345623

Those on the far right aren’t in the W.H. are they Stephen. If one does get there I’ll be sure to be the first to bash him/her if they screw up, and you can count on it, I promiss. But until then it’s just talk and nothing more.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 9:57 PM
Comment #345625
People like you spit on American troops when they came back from Vietnam,

BS, Bill how foolish of you to say this. These urban legends if they happened at all were few and far between despite conservative mythology to the contrary. You and your fellow conservatives still spouting this nonsense watched Rambo way to much, and here is a bit of info you can use, just because it was in a movie doesn’t mean it is true.

If he was, as you falsely claim, like these people it stands to reason he would be doing the very same thing now with troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. So your asinine remark should, if you had any decency at all, be retracted with an apology.

“Covering this same topic is author and columnist Bob Greene’s 1989 book Homecoming in which Greene prints several letters he had solicited from veterans, asking to hear from them if they had been spat upon and focuses on firsthand accounts of their treatment.[4] Greene’s book includes 63 accounts involving spitting, and 69 accounts from veterans that did not believe anyone was spat upon after returning from Vietnam.”
Quoted from:

“The other spitting incident involved delegates to the Republican National Convention in Miami in `72…The delegates (including several matronly women) reviled and spat at Ron Kovic and two other wheelchair-bound Vets who had been invited by California Congressman (and Korean War Marine Vet) Pete McCloskey to attend the convention. The scene was described by Hunter Thompson in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, my reader says.

I remember back in the day a lot of VFW chapters refused to admit Vietnam vets for a time because the WWII guys thought Vietnam vets were drug-addled slackers who had lost the war. So much for supporting the troops.”
Quoted from:

Shame on you Bill for this false accusation.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 29, 2012 10:27 PM
Comment #345631

The time to moderate the party is now, not while the folks are flush with success, considering any dissent to their behavior as a dissent to the successful model of running campaigns.

As for Obama, think back, where did you hear the talking points that now lead you to believe that Obama is what you believe him to be? Taking political attacks like that at face value is a dubious way to assess candidates. That’s why I insisted on getting the word out on this. I will not have my candidate treated like a spendthrift he isn’t, if the facts argue against that conclusion. It’s not fair to the voters, much less his supporters, to have him bashed for something he’s not doing.

More to the point, this isn’t any flavor of holding Obama accountable. If he’s not overspending, than people are misdiagnosing the problem, and misprescribing the solution.

Left to myself, I’m not the world’s biggest liberal. I’m more or less a centrist by origin, a moderate of whatever side I was on. Nowadays, if I was like I was at twelve, I couldn’t have found acceptance asa Republican. Things were different then, and even now for a Democrat like me. I go where I am accepted, where I find that people follow the merits of policy, and not the doctrinal value.

I would say that the point of being conservative is not to insist that nothing changes, but rather to insist on selective, not indiscriminate change. It’s not to refuse all regulation, but to keep that regulation down to what’s necessary. It’s not to refuse all tax increases, but to limit those increases to what’s sensible and sustainable with a healthy economy. It’s not to refuse all spending increases, or to fervently seek spending cuts no matter what, but to carve away unnecessary, wasteful, or corrupt spending, leaving what does true good.

It’s not to stop the earth on its axis until everybody gives the industrialists their due, it’s to make sure that a person can still make a decent buck doing good business.

Conservatism doesn’t require fanatical opposition to progress, anymore than liberalism requires fanatical devotion to government spending and government doing things for you. The happy mediums of our political philosophies do exist, and if we want to truly watch them grow strong, we have to encourage moderation as a general rule, not just try and hold the monsters of radicalism back as they emerge like Godzilla from a sea of overwrought rhetoric.

I mean, if you really want to know, one reason I had my eye on Obama was his 2004 Keynote Address, when he spoke of a united, rather than a divided country, an all inclusive vision of American politics.

I think that guy is still there, but if your dancing partners are the Republicans of today, then crafting moderate compromises that don’t make you look cravenly disloyal to your own constituents is difficult. In politics, too many, especially on the right, fail to realize that the best way to make a deal is to make giving in a profitable choice. Instead, they try to bash their way through any compromise. Well, pretty soon, is there any value to not simply standing your ground, too?

Republicans had a chance, early on, to neutralize some of Obama’s advantages without getting belligerently obvious about it, but they chose a path of radical opposition, opposition weighed not by merit or improvement of position in compromise, but instead by the desperate necessity of depriving Obama of success.

The trouble is, the Republicans can point to nothing they’ve done that moderates would credit as a success. They’ve scored some politic points, but at the expense of being able to speak of anything positive they’ve done. With that out of the picture, they have little left but a campaign of extreme negativity. Obama can say Bin Laden’s Dead, and GM’s alive, that Obama’s constrained spending better than Bush did. The GOP and conservatives like yourself can only quibble with these points, prompting some to remember what Teddy Roosevelt said about the man in the arena.

It’s long past time the GOP came back down to Earth. If folks had done that earlier, you might have a far more relaxed, better centered party, but instead, you have a party that’s trying to stretch hardline positions to cover the mainstream, without entirely succeeding.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 29, 2012 10:32 PM
Comment #345632

First of all; Stephen, you and I have absolutely nothing in common. Thank God for men like your grandfather who fought for the freedoms you would so easily cast aside. My own father was buried in his uniform; he spent 3 years in Europe during WWII. I also served from 66 to 70; I traveled through many airports and am personally familiar with the likes of the hippy flower children on the left.

You don’t want to boast of a victory in November because you know you are going to lose. You spout how the right has hammered Obama and the Dems; you are right. I don’t believe there has ever been a man whose policies are so disliked by the American people. There were a whole lot of people who believed this socialist was different; that he actually meant what he said about transparency, hope and change, and unity. But we soon found out he is nothing more than another corrupt politician whose only goal is to serve 4 years while campaigning for another four. He is a divider, and has tried to drive a wedge between every class of Americans. So go ahead and do your excel, count your numbers, but I will listen to the people who are fed up with the man who hates capitalism, fossil fuel, and the Constitution. What I hear is not good for Obama or the dems.

Re/conservativism criticizing Republicans; it happens every day when TP conservatives do their best to boot RINO’s. That’s right Mr. Daugherty, we do not like the RINO’s who are called the Republican establishment and we have worked to get rid of them. Now you will say in a whiny voice, “but you need republicans who can compromise”; in fact that is all you socialists have done is complain that the conservatives are booting moderates who will compromise. But in the same breath you same people boot moderates and embrace the most liberal of liberal democrats. You have the audacity to tell us what to do, or tell us we have a divided party, and yet the Democratic Party of today, would not be recognized by JFK. So I say; keep going the direction you are going. More democrats are leaving the party and becoming independents.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 29, 2012 10:34 PM
Comment #345638

Stephen, Billinflorida’s comment says it all. To add when Democrats took control of congress republicans didn’t have a chance it was the democrats my way or the highway, which is still going on in the Senate. Stephen I don’t have any objection to REAL PROGRESS which is something we haven’t had lately from either side. Congress IMO is nothing but 535 children throwing tantrums because they don’t get their way, especially the leader children and daddy child in the W.H. affraid to spank them because he don’t want to be the bad guy.

Posted by: KAP at May 29, 2012 11:04 PM
Comment #345639

KAP, Obama is not going spank Reid because Reid is doing exactly what Obama wants him to do. Stephen seems to forget that Reid has not allowed a Budget to be brought to the floor of the Senate.

It’s not really hard to figure things out when you look at the situation logically. Logic tells us no matter how the left spins and blames the conservatives for attacking Obama, he is still in trouble. The left is all upset about how the right talks about Obama; but they conviently forget how they talked about Bush. In fact Mr. Daugherty was one who thought Bush was an ignorant redneck. But Obama is the smartest person who ever sit in the oval office. Funny how things change.

Re/Stephen’s comment about Republicans not accomplishing anything. Once again Stephen forgets Obama had complete control of the Congress for nthe first 2 years, and control of the Senate for four. Stephen also seems to forget why the dems lost the House, Senate seats, and state legislators in 2010. A year ago the dems and the unions created havoc in Wisconsin. But it turns out that Walkers programs worked and now they have completely changed their reason for recalling Walker. In fact the recall was the most important thing in the country, and now that Walker is holding a good lead, the dems no longer think the vote really means anything. Again, funny how things change. In fact, the unions have spent millions to beat Walker, and the DNC has all but thrown them under the bus.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 30, 2012 12:22 AM
Comment #345640

You can’t help it, can you? Even in responding to my description of my late grandfather, you have to get a dig in. Two, in fact.

I won’t boast of a victory I don’t have yet. But I’m fairly relaxed about Obama’s chances. I don’t need to insist on it to you at this point, to feel confident.

As for all the rest, that’s just the mythological BS you’ve piled around, trying to pull Obama off the pedestal. The problem is, your whole effort to unseat Obama, is pretty much just a transparent attempt to get Obama, as you tried to get Clinton.

And your rhetoric is pretty much transparently about hating Obama. Virtually none of it’s true, and it’s all piled on with the perjoratives dripping down the sides. There’s no moderate critiques, he’s a monster in your view.

But a monster won’t be what the voters see. I remember Republicans trying the same campaign, years ago, and what ended up happening was a debacle of a loss for your folks.

Fact of the matter is, you can’t rule the country all by yourselves, even if you get everything you want. Just think that every guerilla tactic you inflicted on the Democrats could just as well be inflicted on you and yours. Ah, where is your lack of need to compromise now?

As for the compromisers of my party? They’re most of the people you targeted for being kicked out of office. The irony is, you’ve helped create a Democratic Party that will listen less to your offers, and consider them less eagerly. This is the price of trying to force the country so far to the Right.

As for JFK and the Democrats? The top rate under him was something like 60, 70 percent. His idea of what a free market was most decidedly differed from yours. Truth is, many Democrats want a more affirmative liberal vision, like JFK had, which is part of why Obama became so big, and why you have to destroy him. Obama has a talent for making people feel good to be liberals.

The question you should ask, is would your Republican Party be at all recognizeable to the GOP of that time, to Eisenhower. He did his best to force out the John Birchers, and your party has let them back in. He understood that embracing the nuts meant forsaking the center.

Republicans and conservatives shouldn’t have expected to be coddled with the numbers Democrats were given, but I don’t remember the President being given any honeymoon before the filibuster threats started. His first bills were greeted with resistance from your side.

It’s the GOP that’s insisted on their way or the highway, and they’re not letting go of power the voters tore from them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 30, 2012 12:44 AM
Comment #345654

Stephen, BS Reid is stonewalling anything that come from the House. If Obama had any Balls he’d do something about it.

Posted by: KAP at May 30, 2012 10:54 AM
Comment #345663

Look, much of what’s coming out of the House is far-right Tea Party garbage, stuff that Democrats would hardly gain any political advantage from helping to pass. Don’t mistake my disdain for the way the filibuster has been abuse for naivete about how the two chambers are supposed to play off each other.

The point of the way the government is structured is to pit opposing groups against each other so they are forced to compromise. The Senate is its own body for a reason, and the requirement of it’s consensus with the House to pass legislation is not an accident, either.

If the Republicans are not calculating what will get out of conference and into a majority vote in the senate, they themselves are to blame when their legislation goes nowhere. Harry Reid is not obligated to be a rubber stamp, especially not for the people who just tried to run him out of office.

Obama’s got plenty of balls. But he’s also got brains, too. Why in the name of all that is good and pure should he back far-right agenda items as a way to make peace with people who just want him out?

There’s a difference between respecting the majority rules process in the Senate, which is what I’m asking of the Republicans, and being a doormat to your enemies in the House, which is what you want Obama and Reid to be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 30, 2012 12:07 PM
Comment #345671

Stephen when you had both houses nothing but far left garbage was the venue. So give it a rest and I will to because we will just be going back and forth, both sides have their garbage.

Posted by: KAP at May 30, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #345676


“There’s a difference between respecting the majority rules process in the Senate, which is what I’m asking of the Republicans, and being a doormat to your enemies in the House, which is what you want Obama and Reid to be.”

Liberal man speak with forked tongue.


Posted by: tom humes at May 30, 2012 4:14 PM
Comment #345695

tom humes-
Let me see if I can rephrase this for the excessively partisan. Were the positions reversed, would you not be protesting the blockade in the Senate by filibuster of 4/5ths of your legislation, much of which could pass by a majority rules vote? And if you had control of Senate, and a Democratic House was passing bills you didn’t like, wouldn’t you be legitimately entitled not to pass their legislation?

I don’t expect the Republicans to pass legislation that a person like me would like. I’d tell them if they wanted anything passed, if they wanted achievements to boast of, or even just little pet projects to sell to the folks at home, that they’d have to compromise, but that’s simple constitutional logic.

But when my party has a majority in Congress, they should be able to shape things just like the Republicans did, and the Republicans should have the grace not to try and shut the Senate down by procedural means. We let you have your fun, why don’t you let us exercise our mandate in turn?

The Framers created a process for working out differences, and the Republicans are bypassing it entirely.

The forked tongue doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to those who must insist that they get their way in a Democratic Republic whether most people are with them or not, and who use divisive rhetoric to that end.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 30, 2012 7:45 PM
Comment #345702


The answer to your stupid question is NO!

The forked tongue comment was and is aimed at you. That is what is it.


Posted by: tomj humes at May 30, 2012 8:35 PM
Comment #345735

Did I hear Stephen Daugherty say the Tea Party was setting the agenda for the House Republicans? How could this be; just a few months ago Stephen was telling us the TP was a passing fad, and that OWS was the real grass roots momentum. So I guess SD does speak with forked tongue.

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 30, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #345776

tom humes-
So, let me get this straight:

1) You would support somebody filibustering your agenda out of existence in the Senate, procedurally overcoming legislation you’d otherwise be able to pass.

2) You would support Republicans in the Senate habitually giving in to Democrats, if the majorities were reversed, and the Republicans had the Senate but not the House.


Blind contrarianism can cause such confusion when it comes to acknowledging the cost of setting bad precedent or expecting irrational outcomes.

You talk of forked tongues, but you conflate several assertions into one. Does the Tea Party have to be an enduring new force on the political landscape to be influential at any given time? No. It can be briefly but strongly influential, just like the Dixiecrats were in 1948 (I’m looking at you, Strom Thurmond!)

If the Tea Partiers were to go away after briefly gaining a lot of support, they’d be fairly normal as such movements go.

And as for the OWS street cred on being grassroots? Well, when you have your rallies funded and organized by Billionaire energy magnates and their organizations, Washington insider Dick Armey and his think-tank, and the Current governor of Florida and his group… well, Grassroots comes across as a bit of a colorful exaggeration, if being honest is an important thing for you.

The awful part about the rhetorical tack you’re taking, is that there is no rest from raising your hand against the other political factions of America. You’ve set yourself against everybody, and you try and win every battle. Simply me telling you this probably makes you more stubborn about it. But it’s the truth. The thing is, sometimes losing a battle is a good way to drop useless and counterproductive arguments. The unwillingness to admit defeat on different subjects does not equate to the ability to avoid those defeats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 31, 2012 6:09 PM
Comment #345783

Stephen, you accuse the TP movement of setting themselves against all of America. So I guess we will see in the next few months if 20% of Americans are really liberal and 46% are conservative.

The question is, am I part of he majority of Americans or are you? What say you SD?

Posted by: Billinflorida at May 31, 2012 7:47 PM
Comment #345807


The liberal mind is so broad it hangs outside the head.

I never said what you were trying to say what I said. That is not even a clever move on your part. If I said go fart in the pool, you would say I wanted you to piss in the bucket. That is not even good semantics.


Posted by: tom humes at May 31, 2012 11:50 PM
Comment #345836

Fiscal conservatism is a marketing scam. If I’m wrong, show me a Republican in the last thirty years who actually slowed spending growth, much less reduced it.

You won’t find one. You can’t balance budgets if you’re unwilling to act from both sides of the accounting column.

I believe that happens to be true regardless of how many people agree with it. I mean, Wall Street and Main Street both agreed for the longest time that the Housing Boom, the Stock market increases would go on forever.

They didn’t. A person can be wrong, and a person in plural can be wrong, too.

I believe that the American people have the right to ask the government for what they want from it. Big, small, the government should be as people want it to be. However much they go for, though, they should pay for it.

America had high debt after WWII, but it had a people not yet corrupted by the Right’s promise of “giving them their money back” I put that in quotes because your policy was to fund the tax cuts, as a stimulus measure, by deficit spending. You didn’t give people back their money, you gave them our creditor’s money, with the obligation that they one day would have to pay them back.

At the very least, people like me and Obama are honest about what we’re doing: deliberately (and temporarily) spending out of a deficit in order to aid the recovery of the economy. Republicans act like they’re the responsible ones, but they just as easily turn around and undo planned spending decreases in the military, and announce huge tax cuts that will drill an even greater hole in revenues, revenues right now not that far from where they were when we were spending over a trillion less.

Somehow, you think that if we debt finance even more tax cuts (don’t fantasize, you’d have to do that to get your tax cuts now), that the economic rebounds that didn’t show up after the 2001, 1986, or 1981 cuts will somehow appear.

God, how many different times do we have to rerun Arthur Laffer’s experiment to understand a simple rational truth that even Ayn Rand couldn’t deny: that given the money, the rich won’t go out and give people jobs, or spend all that much more than they were before, they’ll just accumulate it, as the record cash reserves of corporations and upper class individuals tells us they are.

If Tax cuts were that much of a panacea, don’t you think that the Bush Administration would have seen an much greater increase in jobs and employment? If folks like you were right, we would have seen the economic indicators rear up like a motorcycle doing a wheelie. Instead, they plateaued like a motorcyclist wiping out on a crowded freeway. You can make whatever excuses you want, blame however many liberals you want, but your “fiscal conservative policies” have been a failure at their advertised function.

So why keep returning to a failed experiment? You’ve shouted everybody else down, played on economic anxieties, made people feel as if we’re on the edge of economic extinction on this account. The truth is much more prosaic, the failure obvious if you’re looking at budget numbers, economic numbers, and the like.

Is everything the Democrats are set to try guaranteed to work? No, but at least Democrats have a more free basis on which to try things. And we can do it without the hypocrisy and inconsistency Republicans have forced on themselves by restricting themselves to one set of policies.

tom humes-
You’ve never answered the question straight, and I think you know why. You know that you wouldn’t stand for it, but you don’t want to say that Republicans have been wrong for getting in the Democrats way. The need to be competitive has kept you from conceding to a common sense answer.

You need to have a layer of thinking beyond this rivalry we have here. You need to be able to subjugate your political thinking to your practical thinking, or otherwise, you won’t be able to moderate your approaches to things properly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 1, 2012 12:00 PM
Comment #345859


“So why keep returning to a failed experiment?”

Answer your own question. You are the the one chasing failed experiments.


Posted by: tom humes at June 1, 2012 6:59 PM
Comment #345864

Good grief Stephen, how many times do we have to keep rerunning the same information past he left; the economy was very successful under the Bush tax cuts. It wasn’t until the Dodd/Frank debacle with Freddie and Fannie, and the banking problems that we saw the problems start.

Re/Republicans who spend like Democrats; I will try to explain this to you one more time Stephen (although I believe you incapable of understanding); we have no use for RINO’s. The Tea Party is about fiscal conservativism and we are removing these clowns as fast as we can. You have never quite been able to accept the fact that conservatives did not agree with the spending programs of Bush.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 1, 2012 8:44 PM
Comment #345885

The delinquency rate on Fannie and Freddie’s subprime investments were about a third of the regular for subprime delinquency.

They were also minority investors in the subprime market, edged out by much less regulated competitors.

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

You should really read the article.

I got similar information back in 2008 or 2009, and if you do the math in your head in a rough fashion, you can at least get an idea of why the Fannie-Freddie accusation was bunk.

They weren’t heavily invested enough in the subprime market, and they didn’t constitute enough market share to make the dent we’re talking about. But if they did?

Well, Frank’s supposed contribution was to oppose the creation of a regulatory agency to oversee Fannie and Freddie in 2003. Are you familiar with who was in the majority at that time?

I was given a very thorough education in how a bill actually proceeds through Congress, so you’ll have to tell me how a bill like that could be stopped by somebody who is at best the ranking minority member on the committee, and a member of the minority in the House as a whole.

The same conditions hold true for when Dodd was supposed to do his damage, if you’re talking about 2005 or 2006. Though the Senate could be blocked, Democrats were nowhere near as eager as the Republicans to filibuster, and the fact of the matter is, at this point the markets were at or near their peak.

The damage, in other words, was done. The legislation, if it passed, would be ready just in time for 2006 or 2007, by which time, most of the toxic assets had already built up.

So, your claim, confidently made as it is, just blatantly ignores the facts about what happened on Wall Street. Hell, it ignores Wall Street altogether.

I don’t think the focus on Dodd and Frank and the distracton from Wall Street is accidental. This is a scapegoating meant to politically stifle the drive to reform Wall Street, and if you look at the numbers for who Wall Street turned their support to, after 2008, well, there’s plenty of reasons why Republicans started to claim government was at fault.

As far as the economy being very successful under Bush?

His Annual GDP numbers averaged about 2%, while Clinton’s adveraged about 3.8%, almost double. Like I said before, revenues increased by 7%, on average, every year Clinton was in office, but 1.1% every year Bush was in office. Clinton created over 20 million jobs, had no recession, Bush had two recessions, which together swallowed up all but about a million jobs and change that he created.

By what standard do you consider the economy to be very successful under Bush? You can claime those middle years were great, but they were great primarily because of the Housing sector increases you’re now so quick to distance yourself from.

As for Conservatives not agreeing with Bush’s spending programs? Well, why didn’t I see the Tea Party out there protesting him?

Conservatives nowadays have become drenched in mythology, mythology that the statistics about our economy, about jobs, and about growth simply do not back up. America, post-tax cuts, simply is not making the money that it did before. The revenues did not rebound like promise, much less cancel out the debt. The economy grew more unstable, and job creation stagnated, even before the last year of Bush’s Administration killed four million jobs at one throw.

This is all just marketing, and you’re the folks still buying it, unfortunately.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2012 9:48 AM
Comment #345891

Well Stephen, I just ran your numbers on an excel spreadsheet, and I find your numbers and facts to once again be complete bullshit.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 2, 2012 10:59 AM
Comment #345900

Oh? Could you be more detailed? I mean, because this is something pretty basic here.

On the GDP numbers, I went to This address, picked the annual GDP option, set the range to Jan 1993 to December 2008.

Having done that, I selected 1993-2000, and totaled that with a sum() function in Excel, which more or less adds the cells together, and divided by 8 to get the average. I did the same with 2001 to 2008, and divided by 8 again to get the average.

These are the Sixteen annual GDP figures, for those who want to check the math:

Clinton(1993-2000): (2.9, 4.1, 2.5, 3.7, 4.5, 4.4, 4.8, 4.1,)
Bush(2001-2008): (1.1, 1.8, 2.5, 3.5, 3.1, 2.7, 1.9, -0.3.)

The figure I got was. 3.88% (31/8) for Clinton, 2.04% (16.3/8) for Bush.

I checked the Clinton figures by

Other information, again, I got straight of the OMB website.

So tell me, what figures, from what range?

Or is your boast that you did the figures just a lie? I mean, without the data, without naming a source, how did you just prove me wrong? How do we sort the right from the wrong on your claim of refutation?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2012 11:31 AM
Comment #345903

Let me continue the odd sentence: I checked the Clinton and Bush figures by hand. So don’t think you can get away with claiming I just trusted a machine.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2012 11:34 AM
Post a comment