“How Did It Come To This?”

Well, as we are all aware of by now, the latest crisis being used to spook the bejesus out of Americans is the upcoming, scary-sounding ‘fiscal cliff.’

Though the fiscal cliff may indeed have the potential to cause some uncomfortable financial consequences for the American taxpayer, let’s not kid ourselves about the true motives behind the last-minute vitriol and finger-pointing regarding this issue:

President Obama and his nefarious political cohorts are (quite effectively) trying to hang a colony of albatross around the neck of the Republican controlled House of Representatives, which has been the lone check-and-balance to his radical ideologically driven political chicanery since the 2010 elections.  Obama’s official Ministry of Propaganda, better known as the main-stream media, has dutifully provided Obama with an open venue to showcase and advance his agenda of demonization, launching fresh, biased attacks against all things Republican, and running flac for ‘The Won’ when necessary.  As per this issue, House Republicans have been ruthlessly slandered as inflexible and rigid, possessing no willingness to “negotiate” in good faith, or work toward what Obama, Democrats and the media define as “compromise.”

Of course, “negotiate” and “compromise” are code words for complete capitulation to Obama’s demands.

It’s a bit difficult for Republicans to ‘negotiate’ or ‘compromise’ sincerely with the other side when, just days away from the end of the Mayan calendar, er, I mean, the doom of the fiscal cliff, they arrogantly act like schoolyard bullies.

Mr. Obama’s idea of compromise is summed up neatly in this exchange with Speaker Boehner:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

(Obama then threatened to take Speaker Boehner’s lunch money.)

And here’s this little gem from Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid:

“The American people I don’t think understand, the House of Representatives is operating without the House of Representatives,” Reid said. “It’s being operated with a dictatorship of the Speaker, not allowing the vast majority of the House of Representatives to get what they want.”

Reid said Boehner was more interested in keeping his job as speaker instead of putting the economy first. “Nothing can move forward in regards to our budget crisis unless Speaker Boehner and [Minority] Leader [Mitch] McConnell are willing to participate in coming up with a bipartisan plan,” Reid said. “So far, they are radio silent.”

It is so reassuring to know that we have responsible, serious, principled leadership to steer the country through the rocks and shoals of these turbulent waters.

What is particularly incredulous is that no party or administration in recent memory has given a lick about the cost of the deficit, let alone reducing it. It was not until the 2010 mid-term elections when, in a political upset of historic proportions, a majority class of Republican Congress-people were swept into office, that reducing the deficit became a valid issue.  This clipped the coattails of King Barack the Dunce (So much so not even an entrenched Democratic multimillionaire fraudster like Jon Corzine from Blue Jersey could purchase his way to a second term governorship, despite three Obama campaign rallies.  (As a Conservative in N.J., I will never tire of pointing that out.)), thankfully helping to keep both him and his Senate minions in check.

That being the case, the ONLY reason this administration and Democrats in power have needed to utter the words ‘reduce the deficit’ is because that election compelled them to address the issue.  The people of this country realized that Obama had way too much power, so they elected a class of fiscally Conservative Republicans to counter-balance him, rightly and righteously demanding the deficit be recognized as an issue of significance.

The almost endangered ‘print media’ (Once called ‘newspapers,’ which contained actual printed material deemed essential for gathering and disseminating liberally biased information.) and cable news networks, along with their online extensions, have done nothing but goose step behind Obama’s strict talking points.

All that is ever belched up by Obama’s liberal media toadies is conjecture about whether or not the Republicans are willing to compromise to get a deal done.

In contrast, never once have I heard the words ‘Obama’ and ‘compromise’ mentioned regarding the same line of questioning.

Obama seems to believe, since he was re-elected, he is by default entitled to unilaterally enact his entire agenda without any interference from those who disagree. The media wilfully enables this fantasy, championing every aspect and angle conceivable which would bolster Obama’s clout, no matter how twisted the rational may be.

With Obama, this is another glittering example of his lust for power and his eerie penchant for narcissistic  entitlement.

Now, with the country teetering on the brink of this supposed ‘Y2K12′ fiscal cliff, Obama and his ilk have cynically attempted to co-opt the issue of deficit reduction, trying to blame the same Republicans elected in 2010 of caring only of  ‘protecting the rich.’

They’ve tried this by utilizing one of the oldest tricks in the Democrat playbook:  Class warfare.

You know what?  It has worked.

Unfortunately, the citizens of this country proved they have little or no interest in caring about things that will affect them or their children, financially or otherwise.  A cursory glance at a headline or a quick glimpse of the scrolling ticker on the bottom of their new HDTV screen is enough to satiate their tiny political attention span.  And that’s all they need to form an opinion and press a voting-booth button.  So whether it is class envy, class warfare, or just plain shallow jealousy:  It’s all the same.  Pitting one group against another.  Rich against poor, successful but not too successful, the middle class and millionaires, families and small businesses, Americans who make $250,000 per year, or one dollar under $250,000.

Pretty sick, disheartening stuff.  The moral make-up of Obama, and the machinations of his administration, is such that it can only be described as political savagery at its worst. To the government, in this case, at this point in time, Obama’s government, money is money.  No matter from where it is taken:  Rich, poor, middle-class, or anyone else, it does not matter.  This class warfare is just a tactic.  One used quite successfully by shameless Democrats who stoke the fires of envy, blinding gullible citizens by using emotion to replace reason, for both political and monetary gain.

By any unit of rational measurement, does the federal government deserves MORE money?  Why, exactly, does Obama want to increase revenue?  Has he shown that he has been prudent and responsible with the trillions entrusted to him, or to his party?  Has he kept his campaign promise to, as he claimed during his first campaign, “take a scalpel to the budget…line by line” to streamline the budget (Which he actually hasn’t submitted in 4 years.)?

WHAT has the federal government done to expect or earn the right to take more money from the citizens of this country?  Has it been a good steward of our money, money which was earned through our work, and confiscated by an increasingly corrupt, horribly inefficient parasitic bureaucracy? Forget about from where that money originates, whether it would be taken from a CEO or a school janitor.

I just can’t get past that.  The federal government has, for years, failed in its stewardship of the untold trillions it has confiscated from us all.  It has squandered and spent not only that which they have taxed us, but they have borrowed trillions in our name, from our future, to purchase the halls of power for their own politically self-indulgent desires, committing countless instances of financial malfeasance.

So here’s the simple question:

Does the Government deserve to take any more money from any American?

I don’t pose that question based from an ideological stance.  I am a proud, unabashed Conservative.  But questions don’t need to be asked with a biased bent.  And important questions don’t always need to be answered by focus-group results, manipulated graphs, or politically biased percentages.

It is a sincere, rational, and fair question that I believe should be asked by all of us.  I also believe it deserves a sincere, rational, and fair answer, free from spin and political bias.  That won’t happen, at least not from those who pull the levers of our purposely complex political machinery.

This simple question should stand as a bulwark against the canned answers of the puppets you see sent out and dangled on Sunday talk shows.  It is not meant to elicit spin.  Though a simple question, it presents a challenge.  If answered truthfully, it requires only a yes or no answer.  Politicians and political pundits do not like it when they are forced to commit like that.  It leaves little wiggle room to provide cover when pressed for future comment or explanation.  Especially when the logical, and ironically politically correct answer to the above question is “NO.”  No amount of spin, political hypnosis, or ideological rhetoric can justify any other answer.  Twist it all you want.  Be as specific as you want.  Try to explain it as equalitably or fairly as you feel.

Does the Government deserve to take any more money from any American?

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 29, 2012.
Filed under Barack Obama, Big government, Categories, Congress, Economics, Harry Reid, Modest Proposals, Senate.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Vagabond661

    No they don’t. Term limits with limited benefits while serving their term. We don’t need gun control. We need politician control.

  • GarandFan

    The only time Barry mentions “compromise” is when he wants something done his way. “Compromise” is for someone else to do.

    So…the next recession, who’ll be to blame for that?

    • retired.military

      Dont you know that to dems it isnt who is responsible but whom can they blame it on.

  • ackwired

    The “fiscal cliff” was brought to you by the Republican/Democrat duopoly. Each party feels that it has more to gain in blaming the other party for the problem than they do by working to fix it.

    • Vagabond661

      I’m a conservative but the GOP doesn’t want us. Maybe time for the Libertarians and Conservatives to combine forces?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

        Sounds good in theory but nobody’s going to set aside their culture war for the sake of our country’s fiscal future.

        • Vagabond661

          True. But I am talking about about 2014 & 2016.

      • ackwired

        Let’s just vote our conscience. I’ll vote Libertarian and you vote Constitutional, and well let them form a coalition government.

    • jim_m

      No. The fiscal cliff was brought to you by an administration that hasn’t passed a budget in nearly 4 years. It was brought to you by a dem controlled Senate that wants to do away with the debt ceiling so that with no budget the President can spend without restraint and so that Congress can avoid its constitutional duty to oversee spending.

      • herddog505

        Yes and no. We’ve been heading towards this fiscal cliff for years, if not decades, ever since politicians in DC realized that they could earn perpetual reelection by giving away more and more money to more and more Americans, “paying” for the largesse with borrowed money. Barry and the dems merely stepped on the gas so we’re closer to the cliff than we might otherwise have been. After all, we’ve known for years that Social Security is going bankrupt; the dems were warning back during Bush’s term that we were borrowing too much (they were, of course, right).

      • ackwired

        This would be an example of the blame thing that I was talking about.

  • 914

    Blaming Bush as an excuse to waste trillions more. That’s how.

  • Brucehenry

    So I THINK I understand…..

    When Republicans were elected, as in 2010, it’s because the people “realized that Obama had too much power”, so Republicans were “swept into office” on a historic tide of righteous indignation.

    But when Democrats won (and they won MORE votes in Congressional elections in 2012 than the GOP — it was only because of gerrymandering, err, I mean “redistricting,” that they only gained 8 seats), it’s a matter of “class warfare” and the voters being manipulated by the lamestream media.

    And when Republicans won, the voters were thoughtful and chose wisely, but when Democrats gained seats, the voters were rubes with short attention spans, worthy of contempt.

    Got it……. I think. Is that about the gist of it? At least of the first half of the article?

    • jim_m

      Except that in 2010 the GOP won historic numbers of seats in the house. They also won historic numbers of state legislatures and governorships. When the dems hold 60% of the governorships send me a letter.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Interesting reply.

      I cant help but notice that instead of defending the democrats behavior (and lets face it, who could?) you’ve chosen to nitpick the post instead.

      • Brucehenry

        You may misunderstand the concept of blog comment sections. See, what happens is, a writer posts an article, and then others comment ON THE ARTICLE.

        So, what you call nitpicking I call commenting.

        My comment goes to the perpetual sense of conservative butthurt and hypocrisy (or cluelessness) I see in articles like Shawn’s. I find humor in the fact that two elections, two years apart, can be seen to be the result of A Righteous Sense Of Outrage!(2010) on the one hand, and Class Warfare/Bribery(2012) on the other.

        • LiberalNightmare

          So in other words, you cant or wont defend the behavior of the democrats?

          • jim_m

            both can’t and won’t

          • Brucehenry

            It’s all about interpretation, IMO.

            How ’bout if you say what you like and I say what I like? And if we have something to say to each other, that’s fine?

            But since you insist on an answer, I don’t see a pressing need to “defend the behavior of Democrats” in this thread, since their side has been presented in such an over-the-top, apocalyptic manner in this piece it seems pointless. When an author is using terms like “unilaterally enact his entire agenda,” “lust for power,” “eerie sense of narcisitic(SIC) entitlement,” and “increasingly corrupt, horribly inefficient parasitic bureaucracy,” there is no need to defend anything. The author is showing no grasp of the complexity of the issues involved.

            And just for laughs, it’s funny that Shawn sees in this fiscal cliff nonsense an example of Obama attempting to “unilaterally enact his entire agenda” in the same article in which he claims Obama wouldn’t be talking about debt AT ALL had it not been for the 2010 election. Which is it? It seems to me the reason that we have been brought to this made-up cliff in the first place is because Obama is attempting to address the issue that Republicans hold most dear.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            I dunno, I’ve been hearing Obama lament “Bush’s tax cuts for the rich” as the source of his trillion dollar deficits ever since he took office.

            He should be thrilled they’re finally going to sunset. Hell, he had Slick Willie hisownself at the DNC extolling the Clinton era tax rates as the key to the so-called Clinton era prosperity. Well, let the baby have his bottle.

            Go over the cliff and no increase in the debt ceiling. Let it burn. It’s the only way to be sure.

          • jim_m

            “increasingly corrupt, horribly inefficient parasitic bureaucracy,”

            And exactly what, pray tell, is inaccurate about that characterization?

            Are you going to shock us how the bureaucracy is not increasingly corrupt? Perhaps the answer to that mystery is not that corruption is increasing but only that we are now seeing it better than before. Meh.

            Please grace us with the analysis that shows us how the government bureaucracy is not “horribly inefficient” but indeed, is more efficient than the private sector (at least efficient at anything other than wasting our money or fostering corruption).

            And we await with baited breath the news that the bureaucracy is in fact not parasitic. Since it is the only sector (except perhaps for the gun industry) that has grown under obama, I think we would appreciate your enlightening us how government grows in bloated excess while the rest of the economy languishes and that is somehow not parasitic.

            You may dislike the assessment, but it is spot on.

          • Brucehenry

            “Increasingly corrupt” implies that the bureaucracy is more corrupt now than, say, 5, 10, or 20 years ago. Is it? Any statistics to support a contention like that?

            “Parasitic” is a favored word among conservative apocalypse-wallowers. I don’t think I need to elaborate. Everybody but true-believin’ two-fisted entrepreneurial Republicans are parasites, according to some.

            BTW, new construction is UP. New car sales are UP. Christmas was GOOD. Consumer confidence was UP until this fiscal-cliff bullshit drove it down. I know you want America’s economy to languish as that would support your ideological POV, but it ain’t happening.

          • jim_m

            Christmas was GOOD

            U.S. holiday retail sales this year were the weakest since 2008, when the nation was in a deep recession.

            When did you start writing propaganda for obama? I’d believe you if you weren’t full of shit.

          • Brucehenry

            I stand corrected on the Christmas thing. It was UP, but not good.

            Your housing graph shows that starts are back up to where they were before the gross inflation of the Ownership Society bubble, lol.

          • jim_m

            new construction is UP

            Of course when housing starts are in the toilet anything looks better than the crap at the bottom. Housing starts are still below what they were when obama took office and are ~ 2/3 of what they were under Bush.

            Any more lies you got for us Bruce? PS: New car sales have yet to reach the level they were under Bush too. Everything is just roses in the obamaconomy. We have full employment too!! Just ask Bruce.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Unless my memory fails me this fiscal-cliff bullshit was signed into law by one Barack Hussein Obama.

          • Brucehenry

            Obama, while a better president than McCain or Romney would have been, sometimes does things with which I disagree.

          • Hugh_G

            Once again – I do.

    • Shawn

      No, Bruce.

      The 2010 Republican sweep was a result of your friendly neighborhood Teabaggers realizing just how flippantly Obama fettered our money away at such an alarming, and ineffective rate.

      This 2012 election, well, you got me there. No groundswell “tide” of engaged citizens pushed him over the top. If anything, the 3-4 million Republican voters who didn’t bother to vote this time around helped Obama more than any issue.

      And, Bruce.. It’s nice to see you still have a penchant for being a lovable prick right off the bat the first time we have contact in over a year!

      Warms my cockles!!

      -Shawn

      • Brucehenry

        Hi, Shawn, hope you don’t mind a little constructive, if snarky and annoying, criticism.

        • Shawn

          Mind?
          Pffft.
          I miss it! Gonna try to be around a bit more often, so, you’ll have plenty of bitching to do.
          Hope you had a nice Christmas! Have a great New Year! Be careful out there..
          -Shawn

  • Par4Course

    First: The Democrats have clearly won the Fiscal Cliff narrative. All the talk is about where to draw the line on increased taxes: $250,000? $400,000? $1 million? There is almost no discussion of our $16 trillion debt or the annual $1 trillion Obama deficits. Taxing “the rich,” however we define them, will do nothing to affect Washington’s profligate spending.

    Second: The real problem is that the Beltway boys and girls have lost interest in sensible governing. There used to be an orderly process where the President proposed a budget, committees held hearings, each house of Congress passed a spending programs, and eventually there was a reconciliation to determine what would be done. No more. The President proposes budgets that are DOA, not even garnering the support of his own party. The Senate has not passed a budget in years. So we just have pay-as-you-go spending with no accounting or accountability.

    We went off the Fiscal Cliff years ago when Congress discovered that revenues didn’t matter, that they could just borrow from future generations to pay for whatever they wanted. So-called “entitlements” made this even worse because the recipients thought they had a God-given right to government largess regardless of the effect on the payers, both current and future. Thus, we now have record numbers of Americans on food stamps, government disability and every other kind of program, with no real plan in sight for ever cutting back. When the Chinese and other lenders say “STOP,” the entitlement recipients will riot as they have done in Greece. The rest of America will wonder how we got so monstrously deep in dept.

    • herddog505

      Well said!

  • herddog505

    Let it burn.

  • herddog505

    AoSHQ has a nice post about just how much people’s taxes are going to go up. I cringed how much extra my wife and I will be paying, but I console myself by thinking that AT LAST we’ll be paying our fair share AND we’ll be helping to eliminate the national debt.

    /sarc

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/336095.php

    This leads eventually to a NYPost article about New Yorkers suddenly realizing just how much they will be f*cked if Barry gets his way. Enjoy:

    New Yorkers of all income levels got a rude awakening yesterday when they saw in The Post how much more they will pay in taxes next year without a fiscal-cliff deal by Jan. 1.

    “It’s that much higher?” asked IT worker Vikas Kataria, 34, who discovered that his combined household income of about $250,000 per year will cost him nearly $10,000 more in taxes.

    “I thought it was a couple thousand — but that’s a lot,” said Kataria, who works at Merrill Lynch in Manhattan and is married to a systems analyst for a brokerage firm. “That’s huge!”

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/jumping_out_of_their_kins_SpNwWIBDvSotYbcF7bQZ3O

    • LiberalNightmare

      The first time I hear one of my liberal friends complain about their taxes,I’m going to roll up a newspaper and smack them on nose.

      They need to have their noses rubbed in it until they learn better.

      • jim_m

        I’d smack them if they fail to extoll the fact that they are paying more. They have carried on about how important it is that everyone have “some skin in the game”, they should be proud to contribute.

  • Wild_Willie

    I am quite interested in the French wealthy taking the approach of focusing only on their money is unconstitutional. They won. I think everyone should be taxed, even if it is just a little. ww

    • jim_m

      I think this is one case where the left will argue against following European legal precedent.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Easy answer – Let it burn

  • retired.military

    i honestly wouldnt mind paying a little more in taxes if and only if Congress would spend the money I am already sending them responsibly. Instead of saving Social security they are saving Obama’s friends solar companies, paying for stupid studies, and doing subsidies for everyone from ethanol to dairy to coal and oil industries. How can you justify give subsidies to something when you are broke? How can you justify paying someone for not working for 99 weeks when you are broke? How can you justify paying $5 million to go on vacation when you are broke?

  • Commander_Chico

    Stop the wars, stop trying to control the world, save the money.

    • jim_m

      Yes, Isolationism worked so well when we tried it in the 1930′s. We should do it again now that there is a new fascist threat (radical islam) on the horizon.

    • herddog505

      Defense spending is NOT what causing our fiscal woes.

      Anyway, Barry stopped one war. Don’t you remember?

  • http://twitter.com/juniperstudio juniperstudio

    It’s time to get on board. Tax MORE. Spend MORE. Step on the gas. This bus is going to crash. Lets stop being the Cassandra party and let’s just party. Get the money and spend it where WE want. The smart people will plan accordingly.

    • Brucehenry

      It’s been done. It was called “The George W Bush Administration.”

      • Vagabond661

        Babies born when Obama was elected in 2008 are out of diapers and are now potty trained.

        It’s time for Obama to lose the diapers.

      • jim_m

        Really? I thought the big legacy of the Bush admin was the Bush tax CUTS.

        • Brucehenry

          Shows how much you know, lol.

          No, that’s when Republicans stopped being the Cassandra party and became the let’s-party party. Two unfunded wars and an unfunded prescription drug mandate. (“Spend it where WE want it.”)

          “Unfunded” only in the sense that imaginary money funded them.

          And then clutch their pearls when it’s shown that MORE money has to be spent to ameliorate the effects of their “policies.”

          • jim_m

            OK. Let me make sure I have this straight. The GOP passed the prescription drug mandate over the objections of the dems who had never considered it and were completely surprised by the proposal,

            Also, your statement suggests that all previous wars were planned and funded in advance.

            You ignore that obama has added $1Trillion per year in spending and has never shown any justification for it other than paying off his friends. Where odes that money go? Why are we spending it? It is more than a quarter of all federal spending. WHERE DOES IT GO AND WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR IT?

            You see bruce, all of a sudden you’re just being a jackass. You are apologizing for the dems just like Carl did. You don’t offer any details just snark.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve always been a jackass or worse according to you, Jim.

            The prescription drug mandate was Bush’s proposal, passed with overwhelming GOP support. And previous wars WERE funded, not in advance, but during or after the fact. Ask your parents or grandparents about War Bonds, 90% income tax rates, LBJ’s 10% Vietnam surtax, etc. It was only in the oh-so-fiscally responsible Reagan and Bush administrations that wars were fought without any funding beyond borrowing from the Chinese and others.

          • jim_m

            And previous wars WERE funded, not in advance, but during or after the fact

            SO if we paid for the war afterwards it would be OK with you? You’re so full of it tonight.

            And no. I used to think that you were pretty level headed. Obviously I was incorrect in that assessment.

          • Brucehenry

            Some wars are necessary, some are not. Both should be paid for. I don’t see the disconnect.

            Since the dawn of civilization, wars have been paid for with tax increases — which is one of the reasons they are usually unpopular. George W Bush is not only the first US president to fight a war without funding it — he’s the first head of government in Western history to do so, that I’m aware of.

          • herddog505

            So, let me see if I understand:

            Bush fought his wars without funding them, yet they are responsible for our skyrocketting debt.

            Is that about right?

            Is it, therefore, your claim that the literally trillions that Barry has added to the debt in the past four years is mostly (if not SOLELY) due to Bush’s wars?

            BTW, if you claim that “previous wars WERE funded, not in advance, but during or after the fact” [emphasis mine], then what’s your complaint about Bush’s wars?

            And a final question: will Barry’s proposed tax increases on “the rich” pay the alleged bill for Bush’s wars? If not, how much will it pay?

          • Brucehenry

            See my reply to Jim, above, for an answer to your first question. “Without funding them,” as I am using the term, means
            “with borrowed or printed money.”

            NO, I am not claiming that the trillions that have been added to the debt since “Barry” took office is solely, or even mostly, due to Bush’s wars, although a good deal of it is.

            And the after-the-fact funding wouldn’t be a problem, in my book, if Republicans would admit that they DO need to be eventually paid for. As I said, the GOP pretends one can fight wars and dole out prescription drugs on borrowed money, without raising taxes, but is shocked — SHOCKED! — when asked to perform other functions the same way. Why is OK to fight wars and pay for prescription drugs with Chinese money, but NOT OK to pay for unemployment extensions and infrastructure projects with Chinese money?

            Never mind, don’t answer — it’s ’cause of freeloaders and muslins, ain’t it?

            EDIT: I’m not aware of anyone claiming that increasing taxes on the rich will solve the debt “crisis.”

          • jim_m

            I’m not aware of anyone claiming that increasing taxes on the rich will solve the debt “crisis.”

            You mean other than Pelosi, Reid, obama and the democratic party?

          • Brucehenry

            Including them, as you well know.

          • jim_m

            No they just ran their whole campaigns on that idea. So you are just saying that they are dishonest demagogues. At least we are agreed on that.

          • Brucehenry

            They campaigned on raising taxes on the wealthy, true, but I don’t recall anyone claiming that doing so would be the panacea.

            What I heard Obama saying is that he’s not going to ask the middle class to take a hit in their earned benefits, or raise retirement ages, or whatever, for ordinary folks, without asking those who can best afford it to pay a little more.

            I agree with that, and so does about 53% of the people who voted in this last election.

          • herddog505

            OK, I’m starting to get confused.

            When money is “borrowed”, it implies an intent to repay at a later date. We didn’t fund World War II, the Spanish-American War, the Late Unpleasantness, or the War for Independence with money we’d saved or else gathered up then and there: we borrowed money. So, to that extent, what is different between what Bush did and what his predecessors going back to the Continental Congress did?

            If you want to talk about spending money on social programs (when did THAT become a bad thing to the left???) while fighting a war, please explain how Bush is different from LBJ or FDR, both of whom were busy with their own massive social programs in the middle of their minor foreign scraps.

            The simple fact is that spending under Bush, while it went up (I don’t defend him on this: the man was a wastrel), is totally eclipsed by the spending that’s gone on since Barry took the helm. Let’s look at deficits*:

            2001 – $128.2B SURPLUS

            2002 – $157.8B

            2003 – $377.6B

            2004 – $412.7B

            2005 – $318.3B

            2006 – $248.2B

            2007 – $160.7B

            2008 – $458.6B

            2009 – $1412.7B

            2010 – $1293.5B

            2011 – $1299.6B

            2012 – $1326.9B (estimate)

            So, between taking office in 2001 to leaving office in 2009, Bush ran a total deficit (added to the national debt) of $2.0T. And please note when Bush’s yearly deficit was worst: in 2004. You know: when the war in Iraq was going pretty badly? As we started to get the upper hand, the deficit started to go down. From this, one could infer that Bush was NOT pushing off all the spending into some indeterminate future or some kind of budgetary black hole, but was instead dealing with it as a matter of budgetary routine.

            In his first term, from 2009 to 2013, Barry ran up $5.3T. Even if we assign the 2001 surplus to Slick Willie (this seems fair) and the 2009 deficit to Bush, that STILL leaves Barry outspending Bush by a sizable amount in less than half the time:

            Bush – $3.55T from 2002 to 2009 (inclusive)

            Barry – $3.92T from 2010 to 2012 (inclusive)

            Brucehenry[A]fter-the-fact funding wouldn’t be a problem, in my book, if Republicans would admit that they DO need to be eventually paid for.

            What does this even mean??? Are you trying to claim that the GOP – Bush and the current GOP congressional caucus – have claimed that we somehow don’t have to pay that part of the debt? That this part of the debt doesn’t exist? And that some admission by the GOP that they’ve been bad, bad, bad boys and girls will make it all better?

            The people who lately have been sounding the alarm about the debt have been the GOP. Yes, when Bush was in, it was the democrats. Politics as usual, but please don’t try to claim that the GOP is somehow asserting that we haven’t got to eventually pay for the wars in Iraq and A-stan.

            Brucehenry I’m not aware of anyone claiming that increasing taxes on the rich will solve the debt “crisis.”

            Really? Then what’s the whole issue about taxing the rich? We know from mathematics that taxing the rich, even at rates beyond democrats’ wildest fantasies, won’t bring in enough money to cover the deficit, let alone start paying off the debt. In fact, Barry’s plan won’t put much of a dent in the problem:

            If Congress were to enact the Obama tax rate proposal, that is, reinstate the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income tax rates for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 and for married couples making more than $250,000, the president’s Office of Management and Budget says it would reduce cumulative budget deficits over 10 years by nearly $430 billion.

            To put that $430 billion in perspective, the deficit for fiscal year 2012 was $1.1 trillion. So the ten-year total of revenue gained from raising income tax rates on higher-income people — $430 billion — wouldn’t eliminate one year’s deficit, much less the deficits for the next ten years. [emphasis mine - hd505]

            **

            Now, tell me what Barry’s plan is to cut spending to deal with the billions – trillions – that aren’t being covered by his “tax the rich” plan. As far as I know, he hasn’t got one.

            BrucehenryWhy is OK to fight wars and pay for prescription drugs with Chinese money, but NOT OK to pay for unemployment extensions and infrastructure projects with Chinese money?
            It isn’t (though, again, when did social welfare – prescription drug benefit – become a bad thing with you people???). The problem is, to a large extent, HOW MUCH is being borrowed. If Barry was running deficits similar to those ran by Bush, there wouldn’t be quite such a kick, and his tax plan would actually make a little bit of sense (disregarding the likely effects of raising taxes with a rough economy, that is). But when we’re borrowing over $1T / year with no end in sight… Again, look at Bush’s deficits: they were getting smaller until the meltdown in ’08, and that with two wars. Barry’s are huge and look to stay that way.

            ====

            (*) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

            (**) http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/03/15647710-income-tax-rates-just-one-piece-of-obama-proposal?lite

          • Brucehenry

            These comments are being sorted out of order, sorry.

            I can’t reply to a comment as long as yours after a day like I’ve had, so I’ll just say I think I’ve made my point, up-thread or down-thread, whichever way it shows up next time I refresh this page.

            It’s that not only did Bush fight a war without RAISING taxes, as other leaders throughout history have done. Oh, no, he fought two wars, created a huge new bureaucracy (DHS) and a new entitlement program while CUTTING them. And Republicans have the nerve to say Obama is fiscally irresponsible!

            While I cringe at the waste of many of the stimulus programs, I see that massive Keynesian measures had to be taken after the collapse of late 2008. I guaran-fucking-tee you that President McCain would have tried something similar had he won (whew, dodged THAT bullet!) that election.

            Now, after pouring trillions into the Iraq hole, voting for several Keynesian Bush stimuli in 2003, 2007, and 2008 (I got 1800 bucks in that one!), and passing a new entitlement program in an attempt to buy the Senior Vote, Republicans are having a screaming hissyfit as debt suddenly becomes The Most Important Issue Of Our Time.

            EDIT: Also, as I understand it, we don’t go to the Chinese and say, “Hey, couldja maybe loan us a couple trillion till payday? We wanna invade Iraq…” We just print the money and the Chinese and others buy our bonds.

          • herddog505

            The numbers don’t lie. While Bush was not a miser, his deficits are dwarfed by Barry’s even with fighting two wars, adding the prescription drug benefit, and adding DHS.

            As for your “Keynesian Bush stimulus” – your $1800 – let me know how much you’re paying in new taxes under Barry. If he gets his way, we’re due to get soaked. So, given a choice between getting a “stimulus” of a couple of thousand bucks (even a couple of hundred), we’re gonna be paying the equivalent of several weeks of my salary in EXTRA taxes.

            Wonderful.

            [EDIT] Sorry you’ve had a bad day. Have a drink and a pleasant New Year’s Eve.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, my guy spends faster than your guy. I think much of his spending is justified, just as you think much of your guy’s was.

            I’m pretty sure I WON’T be paying more “if Barry gets his way” since I make considerably less than $250K and, fiscal cliff or no, Jan 1, Jan 10, or Feb, 1, there WILL be a cut back to current tax rates for me and my buddies.

            Thanks for the good wishes, Herd. You too. I don’t drink any more, though….. And Jim, if you read this, Happy New Year to you, too, ya crazy wingnut you! ;-)

          • jim_m

            I think much of his spending is justified,

            SOLYNDRA

            in other words Bruce doesn’t give a damn how much obama spends since he knows it is going into the pockets of dem donors and friends. As long as his side is getting rich he doesn’t care. After all, he has already declared that the current government cannot be corrupt or inefficient. I assume this is because Barry is in charge.

            But if conservatives are in charge of spending the money even a dime that is wasted is a crime against humanity.

            And Happy New Year to you as well. And to one and all.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I care about “my side getting rich” lol. When does “my side” include ME? Alas, it’s not to be…

            I never said the government isn’t corrupt. I said the bureaucracy wasn’t “increasingly” corrupt, or at least that Shawn hadn’t shown that it was. Ditto for “horribly” inefficient. Oh, and that using terms like that, including “parasitic,” was over-the-top. But the only word you seem to recognize as over-the-top is “oligarchy,” and then only when Chico says it.

          • jim_m

            Oligarchy is not over the top. It is just conspiracy theory BS. Much like Chico’s recent adventure in claiming that the NRA is in cahoots with the gun manufacturers to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

            Parasitic may indeed be hyperbole but I hardly characterize it as over the top.

          • jim_m

            Historically inaccurate. And astonishingly ignorant

            Many crowned heads of Europe fought wars on borrowed money. In fact the reason the crown needed to tax the colonies was to pay for their wars with France. Wars have always been paid for. They have also been fought frequently with borrowed money. Bush is hardly the first and will certainly not be the last to fight a war on borrowed money.

            The Rothschilds did not become fabulously wealthy by making champagne. You’re usually better than this.

          • Brucehenry

            Certainly wars have been fought on borrowed money. Bush was the first leader I’m aware of to actually CUT taxes in time of war. In other words he pretended they were cost-free. In the run-up to the Iraq War he actually sent surrogates to the Sunday talk shows to claim that it would cost drastically less than it wound up costing. One even claimed the war would “pay for itself” with oil revenues or some such voodoo.

            In history, leaders fought with borrowed money but didn’t pretend ( or believe) that they would never have to raise taxes to repay it.

          • jim_m

            He cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Are you so ignorant to think that increasing taxes will improve the economy? DO you really think that laundering money through a corrupt and inefficient federal government is better at stimulating the economy than actually letting people spend that money in the economy directly without the government skimming half of it off? (Oh, that’s right. You claim that the government is neither corrupt nor inefficient)

            A growing economy will produce more revenue over the long run. But I suppose that you believe that the government should collect 100% of the economy in taxes and then redistribute it according to some bullshit ideological standard. That hasn’t worked historically either.

          • Brucehenry

            I understand the rationale, but Bush didn’t take into account the changed circumstances after 9/11. He pretended that Iraq would cost little or nothing, and when confronted with the reality that it would cost vastly more than he said it would, refused to adjust his tax proposals to fit the new facts on the ground.

            Look, leaders must choose. If you can’t afford to fight a war and cut taxes, too, you should choose which fucking way to go. Don’t just smirk, tell everyone to go shopping, and hope for the best. “I’m the Decider!” my ass.

            The fact is, as every fucking leader in history knew, you don’t cut taxes to fight a war. You just don’t. And then you damn sure don’t add a new entitlement program on top of that.

          • Vagabond661

            To blame Bush then not offer a budget for 4 years or a viable plan to help the economy means Obama OWNS it. He needs to put on his big boy pants.

      • http://twitter.com/juniperstudio juniperstudio

        DEFLECT DEFLECT DEFLECT. This is the answer, there is no counter argument to this. Once the Republicans get on board with the Spend and Tax mentality and stop trying to explain fiscal responsibility it becomes a simple street brawl for the larges of the federal government. So YES thank you George Bush. No other argument will succeed. If you want to save this country you must destroy it.