Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2009 > February > 09 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGOP spendthrifts put us in this budget mess
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Republicans in Congress and on the TV and radio talk shows claim to oppose the economic stimulus out of concern about the national debt and a moral conviction that we should not saddle future generations of Americans with such a burden.
But who do they think they’re fooling? Apparently they believe the world began anew at noon on Jan. 20, and that everything that occurred prior to that date had somehow been wiped clean from the national memory banks.
Well, it hasn’t.
We do face a long-term problem. Our gross federal debt is at $10.6 trillion, with a good portion owed to lenders in China, Japan and the Middle East. But how did that number get so huge?
Well, of that $10.6 trillion debt —- a figure that accumulated over more than 225 years —- a shocking $8.35 trillion was racked up during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush. And much as their apologists pretend otherwise, those numbers can’t be blamed mostly on Congress. During the Reagan era, for example, final budgets approved year after year totaled almost exactly what Reagan had requested.
Now, raw numbers can admittedly be misleading. A more accurate way to gauge how much a president has contributed to the problem is to measure debt against the size of the national economy. If the economy grew a lot, debt could grow as well without creating a problem.
Under Jimmy Carter, debt declined as a percentage of gross domestic product, falling to 32.6 percent, its lowest in 50 years. Then came Reagan. By the time “the Gipper” left office, the debt had almost tripled in raw numbers; as a percentage of GDP, it soared to 53.1 percent, and it rose still further, to 66.2 percent, under the first President Bush.
Under Bill Clinton, it fell again, to 57.4 percent, but that reprieve would prove to be temporary. The second President Bush started two expensive wars, one a necessity and one a war of choice. He also became the only president in history to cut taxes in time of war, rejecting the quaint notion that a nation at war ought to sacrifice a bit to pay for it. Bush also created an expensive new entitlement program, the Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors.
The result? The debt almost doubled under Bush, from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. As a percentage of GDP, it grew from 57.4 percent to 68 percent, the highest since the aftermath of World War II.
And of course, the same congressional Republicans now preaching the dangers of deficit spending were right at Bush’s side, writing and passing the budgets that drove us deeply into the red.
Comments
By DeborahinAthens
February 9, 2009 6:33 AM | Link to this
Amen! It is so frustrating to watch the political posturing in the Republican party right now. As I recall, Dubya never vetoed a spending bill until the day he vetoed the SCHIPs increase that would have given health insurance to more uninsured children. Another thing I wish these holier-than thou free marketers would remember is the 30% tariff on lumber and steel that Dubya initiated. What a negative impact it had on Georgia businesses because American steel mills couldn’t produce enough steel for business to plan their production. What a bozo…we will live with his mistakes for generations. If the Republicans can’t help, they need to get out of the way and shut up.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 9, 2009 6:33 AM | Link to this
{{{{GOP’s outcry over deficits disingenuous By Jay Bookman But who do they think they’re fooling? Apparently they believe the world began anew at noon on Jan. 20, and that everything that occurred prior to that date had somehow been wiped clean from the national memory banks.}}}}
Why do you think Bush’s approval rating was at 27%?
And why did Ross Perot get so many votes?
I’ll tell you what, this presidency of baraKKK has totally turned the world upside down, just like you say, who would have ever thought Republicans would return to Conservatism so quickly?
And that you would find a lib arguing against government spending?
Odd, isn’t it?
By Cherokee
February 9, 2009 6:39 AM | Link to this
I rmemeber gritting my teeth as the disingenuous Neal Boortz said not to worry, the debt is a small part of our much increased economy. Of course now, that the Prez wants to spend the money on domestic issues, he’s whining a different story.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 7:02 AM | Link to this
And, why did none of the Republicans complain or even try to put up a fight to reduce the deficit or debt before now. Well, now they are the minority party and they are losers. Now, they’re back in pandering mode for the next election. They’re still losers though. Pathetic losers. Losers that are worried more about their own skin than about their nation. If they had ever cared about this nation, then they would have done things, many things, differently. They would have done things differently for all those years when they were not working with the minority party Democrats. All those years when they were in complete control of Congress and the White House. Now, they’re pandering little babies. The babies. The losers. The panderers. They’re the Republicans.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 9, 2009 7:10 AM | Link to this
{{{{Tired of hearing this insipid “everybody agrees” (with the stimulus) argument, the libertarian Cato Institute produced an open-letter response ad (pdf) featuring the bold headline: “With all due respect, Mr. President, that’s not true.” The open letter has now been signed by more than 200 economists, and I overheard a top Cato official last week tell a supporter that the institute plans to continue its ad campaign against the phony Keynesian consensus.-AmSpec}}}}
Own it, liberals.
By Andy the Welcher
February 9, 2009 7:18 AM | Link to this
Yes the “libs” will own the fix to W’s problems, that is exactly what is happening.
It’s like W bet with the American people and Welched when he lost, much like Andy.
Andy’s a Welcher
bwahahaha… ouch… ew
By Curious Observer
February 9, 2009 7:20 AM | Link to this
And now we get the new GOP talking points, viz.,
Hoover was great, except that he allowed Congress to raise taxes and pass the Smoot-Hawley Act;
Franklin Roosevelt was a failure. His government programs did nothing to reduce unemployment, and only World War II saved him;
St. Ronnie was nearly perfect in everything he did;
John Kennedy was a non-entity;
George W. Bush and his father failed because they abandoned their conservative roots by engaging in deficit spending and failing to cut taxes on the wealthy and on businesses more; and
The cure for our economic malaise is more tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses/corporations.
The only problem the conservatives have is a little thing called an election, in which a majority of American voters resoundingly rejected their platform.
By Andy the Welcher
February 9, 2009 7:26 AM | Link to this
The conservatives can always ask nancy to have a seance and ask Ronnie what to do…
While Nancy’s there she can ask Ronnie if Andy is a Welcher…
bwahahahaha… ouch
Andy’s a Welcher
ew
By Midori
February 9, 2009 7:26 AM | Link to this
((Why do you think Bush’s approval rating was at 27%?))
ummmmmm, because he sucked as a leader and destroyed everything he laid his finger on?
By Bud Wiser
February 9, 2009 7:30 AM | Link to this
Jay, these are pretty impressive debt numbers, if true, racked up under the20 years of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
But, before Mrs G and Midori start pounding their desks and screaming “yes, yes, yes..” ala Meg Ryan in “When Harry Met Sally”, I might be curious as to your impression of the half trillion or so in cold hard taxpayer cash blasted out the window, and nobody knows where it went, in about 3 weeks by Duhblama? I suspect that if he or the Real Boss, Nancy Pelosi) get their way on this next one, we’ll be talking so many zeroes that we’ll end up feeling like we just walked out of a Star Trek convention.
By Andy the Welcher
February 9, 2009 7:35 AM | Link to this
Question for the conservative trolls:
Just a scant 3 weeks ago you all were here proclaiming that Bush would be judged by History as one one of the greatest presidents ever, now you all seem to agree that Bush wasn’t a “true” conservative (whatever that actually is) ,and his presidency sucked what gives? Are you all welching???
hahahahahahaha….ouch
ew
By Slowillie
February 9, 2009 7:36 AM | Link to this
I believe Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2007. Congress not the president is responsible for taxing and spending. I didn’t see any major changes in spending or taxing from the Democrat majority congress in the last two years. Both parties are to blame! It is time to throw them all out! All they care about is personal power and being re-elected.
Slowillie
By Joey
February 9, 2009 7:40 AM | Link to this
Jay;
Six months, a year, two years, four years from now you will still be posting this same tired old story. It is all Republicans fault. Bush did it. Reagan and Bush did it. NIxon, Reagan and Bush did it. Democrats tried to save us, but voters wouldn’t let them.
My only question is: What do you do to yourself that allows you this total denial of any but the most minute Democrat complicity?
By Dave R
February 9, 2009 7:41 AM | Link to this
Uh, Jay? (And others) In case you missed it, this “mess” was caused by the meltdown in our financial markets that had little, if anything, to do with deficits.
This is not to give a pass to the sorry excuses for Republicans that infest the halls of Congress now and in the past who didn’t do enough about budget deficits. They certainly are to blame. But a little revisionist history lesson like Mr. Bookman here likes to try to foist upon us doesn’t make his observation right, either. Here’s why:
When you are a President submitting a budget, you submit what you think has a reasonable chance to pass Congress (remember the little thing called “checks and balances” in the Constitution?), and Reagan was saddled with a doozy of a Democratic-controlled Congress. He also increased defense spending dramatically, which helped to bring down the Soviet Union and effectively end the Cold War.
Clinton, however, had a Republican House for the first time in decades, which forced him to rethink his free-spending ways. These were, by and large, true fiscal conservatives. The problem began when the Senate became populated with a majority of so-called Republicans; because as we all know, you can tell who is an Senator, but you can’t tell them anything. Senators think they are above all this ideology-based discussion, which is why they tend to compromise more, and believe in less (except in their superiority over mere mortals).
The root of this problem remains the hyper-inflated housing market and the bad home loans that were mandated by the Communities Reinvestment Act begun under Jimmy Carter, and expanded under Clinton, and the undermining of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by a Congress that was asleep at the switch. Not deficits.
The end result is that this so-called stimulus package will do little, if anything to move us out of this recession, but it will make our lawmakers and the starry-eyed Obama supporters out there feel good.
And isn’t that what it’s all about in the world according to Obama - feeling good?
By Midori
February 9, 2009 7:42 AM | Link to this
Bud Wiser,
if it weren’t for venomous hate and bile, where would you be?
what was your 7:30?
a preemptive strike at being a vicious, soulless name caller?
I normally try to stay far away from you, as I find you and your bile most pathetically revolting.
Now that I had my say, and responded to your “calling me out”, I think I’ll go back to my previous standard.
I’ve yet to see you post anything positive. Not a single thing.
I’ll bet mosquitoes even avoid you.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 9, 2009 7:45 AM | Link to this
Jay, thanks. Say it again. Say it often.
Slowillie @ 7.36, while I’m happy to spread the blame around when it’s warranted, I’m a little tired of hearing the talking point that “Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2007. Congress not the president is responsible for taxing and spending.”
It doesn’t really work that way in practice when the executive branch is poised to veto anything it finds even mildly disagreeable, and the Senate is essentially deadlocked, which was the case between 1.2007-1.2009.
Such was the case that even so much as an Iraq appropriations bill with mild stipulations for an exit strategy—the sort of thing the vast majority of Americans wanted—couldn’t get passed.
By Andy the Welcher
February 9, 2009 7:47 AM | Link to this
Bud, I hate to let facts get in the way of might be an enjoyable conversation, but all the dollars “blasted out the window” were “blasted” by your W.
I haven’t been watchin that closely, but since “Duhblahma” took office, none of the funds have been released as the party of “No” has done everything in thier diminished power to become what they weren’t for the last 8 years, concerned about the economy and the deficit… Amazing how nimble the Republicans can be when they want to be.
Just don’t bet with Andy, because, well you all know what happens if he loses….
ew
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 9, 2009 7:48 AM | Link to this
Joey claims Jay says: “It is all Republicans fault. “
But of course Jay never actually said that. Nice try, Joey.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 9, 2009 7:53 AM | Link to this
Dave R. was making a little bit of a rational case @ 7.41 until we got to:
“bad home loans that were mandated by the Communities Reinvestment Act begun under Jimmy Carter, and expanded under Clinton”
Oh please. The foundation of Bush’s “ownership society” was that no matter how sh!tty he might have made things for lower-incomed working Americans, at least more of them had become homeowners during his Administration (ok, at the end of his term, he couldn’t even claim that, but it was the administration’s big source of pride, for years.)
You don’t get to have it both ways. You can’t push and push for getting ARMs out to those who don’t really qualify for a mortgage (remember Alan Greenspan’s exortations to the American public to grab an ARM? I do) and then sheepishly claim it was Carter and Clinton’s fault.
Well, you can’t if you’re honest, anyway.
By reality
February 9, 2009 7:53 AM | Link to this
The Democratic Party have controlled Congress and the Committees that control spending for how long now? Bush is bad for helping seniors pay for prescriptions?? Liberal media, selective amnesia.
By Pat
February 9, 2009 7:54 AM | Link to this
Republicans aren’t idiots - this is genius. You give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, arguing they’ll spend it to create jobs. Instead, they hoard it, and the deficit balloons. You insist bankers regulate themselves - they crash the entire economy .. requiring massive government spending to avoid another Depression. Then, when the public throws the GOP out, you somehow convince an over-cautious Dem Prez desperate for Republican approval that he needs Republican support - so he and his gutless Dems in the Congress let Repubs gut his stimulus - still huge, but now small enough to guarantee it WILL fail. The upside? You turn on the Prez, unanimously rejecting the bill you weakened. Now Repubs can righteously argue that they saved the public from massive government spending, smugly watch the nation fall into even worse economic disaster - and take advantage of American’s gnat-sized attention span and collective amnesia to pretend you can save them from the spendthrift Dems in 2012. It’s evil, but it’s strategic. Nice work, guys.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 7:59 AM | Link to this
How could anyone expect a Republican to discuss facts. I’ve been calling out these pathetic excuses for human life forms for as long as I’ve been posting here and the Republicans invariably turn to rhetoric as their argument for everything. They do not present fact in support of a claim of any value such as the debt or the deficit and how we got here. Instead, they jump around from one sound bite to another in their attempts to get votes for their party. Are there any Republicans out there willing to present facts about our national debt and deficit and where it came from. Cowards.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 8:03 AM | Link to this
Such objections are indeed ironic coming from some of the greatest advocates for President Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut package in 2001. Indeed, when Bush introduced his tax cuts he declared, “A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy, and we just can’t drive on and hope for the best. We need tax relief now.” The Republicans who now call the $800 billion recovery package “too big” jumped on the Bush bandwagon claiming his $1.35 trillion in tax cuts were just what was needed to jump start a sluggish economy
Again, taking advice on how to fix the economy from those who broke it is stooooopid.
Oh, and Bud, glad to see you are so intimidated by Midori and I.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer
There are some good Republicans….Collins, Specter and Snowe.
Shout out to those three, more concerned about America and Americans than fading GOP power.
By Thinkwell
February 9, 2009 8:08 AM | Link to this
The bailout explained: Why do you think they call it a piggy bank?
The stimulus package explained: This is your economy. This is your money. zzzzz. Any Questions?
By Bud Wiser
February 9, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this
Hey there, I didn’t say anything venomous or bile; no need, Duhblama and his forecats for our national catastrophe stand on their own.
Try reading sometime Midori, or having someone read to you; you know, reading is FUNdamental.
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 9, 2009 8:10 AM | Link to this
“Bud, glad to see you are so intimidated by Midori and I.”
And Nancy Pelosi. She’s the “real” boss dontchaknow.
When you deal with a right-wing troll, mommy issues always come along for the ride. Mrs. G, you know that, but I just thought lurking readers might find that info useful.
later, all.
By Midori
February 9, 2009 8:12 AM | Link to this
Bud Wiser,
Let me guess: your favorite past time is pulling the wings off of flies.
Am I correct?
By Deborah
February 9, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this
Yes, Curious Observer tax cuts for the wealthy and business are the ticket—of course such people enjoyed these goodies the past eight years (and during Reagan) and did nothing but STEAL from the American people, move jobs overseas, cut or freeze wages and benefits, slash and eliminate retirement accounts, let their infrastructure crumble—all this in the face of record company profits. They took the money and ran because Bush and his free market crap allowed it. Wall Street got away with the big rip-off, too.
The people who are supposed to purchase products from such companies cannot do so while their budgets are being squeezed. Your logic defies logic.
The rich and business need to be TAXED. When they are TAXED they have to SPEND money on higher wages and their businesses in order to SAVE money in the guise of write-offs. This keeps money flowing in the economy. Business needs to have more respect for its employees upon whose backs its products are made and with the money from employee wallets its products are purchased. Business and the rich cannot be wealthy without the person who makes the product and the person who buys the product. Call it the middle-class mother’s market economy logic.
Plenty of Republicans signed on for the Wall Street bailout and didn’t want to help Main Street. Now President Obama wants to help Main Street and the Reps don’t want that. Once the country club party—still the country club party.
Harkens to a feudal society when the king squeezed the starving phesants so he could live high on the hog.
Become villagers with torches and burn out the ones who got us into this mess.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this
568,000 jobs lost in January
that’s 18000 a day….
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 8:21 AM | Link to this
I’m hearing we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg on Michael Steele’s financial problems. Clears the way for the defacto head of the GOP to lead y’all over the cliff.
Gentlemen….start your engines….please!
By Bud Wiser
February 9, 2009 8:23 AM | Link to this
No Midori, my favorite pastime is shooting birds, then pulling off their wings after they are cooked, just before I eat them.
I must go now, the golf course is calling on this beautiful day.
And please Jay, no envy, no envy.
By Midori
February 9, 2009 8:26 AM | Link to this
Mrs. G,
did you see Steele on ABC yesterday morning, blaming his problems on the Washington Post?
D*MN LIBERAL MEDIA!! struck yet again!!!
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 8:29 AM | Link to this
Mrs. G at 8:07,
Those are not Republicans. First, they did not fall in line with the just say no panderers. Second, they actually accepted that stretched out arm from the Democrats and worked on the bill that the President has has all but begged Congress to work on like they should do. No, Mrs. G., they are Republicans In Name Only because they actually care about the nation and the people that elected them. A true Republican would just say no.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 8:39 AM | Link to this
Midori
Yep I heard him.
Synopsis: The stimulus bill does not create wealth and government jobs are not real jobs and I am not a crook.
Review: he’s a knuckhead
By Eric1
February 9, 2009 8:42 AM | Link to this
Is anyone even remotely surprised. For years hypocrisy has been the most visable characteristic of the the republican party. Why should that change now.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this
You would think that these Republicans that care so much about honesty and integrity would learn how to screen their candidates. At the very least, they should have learned from their Palin-vetting mistakes. Then again, McCain did finally come clean on that one and admit that he never really cared about vetting her and picking a qualified candidate. He was more interested in winning no matter the cost to we the people. It’s all about winning. No wonder these Republicans are such losers. They just cannot get anything right.
By TN Gelding
February 9, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this
You’ve got to love ‘em
Sen. Shelby says the stimulus will create a financial disaster that they’ve already helped create. They need to let the Dems pass it and then we’ll see, but they can’t afford to take the chance it might actually help a little.
By BDAtlanta
February 9, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this
Look at GA’s own Chambliss’ addition to the legislation:
A $15,000 tax break (tax cut) for home buyers. That’s not going to help the middle class or the poor. The only people capable of buying a home right now are wealthy folks salivating over the rock-bottom prices they see on available homes and foreclosures.
So, it isn’t enough that the prices are low, they also need you and me to help them finance their purchases with tax dollars.
Saxby is an ex-realtor so perhaps he is planning for his post-Senate life?? He needs us to help him finance his future??
By BDAtlanta
February 9, 2009 8:58 AM | Link to this
We know how the GOP picked Steele. They all got in one place, looked around the room a grabbed the first black guy they could find. Trying to get them some of that Obama vibe.
Truly pathetic.
By Andy the Welcher
February 9, 2009 9:00 AM | Link to this
Anybody?
W from first to worst in a scant three weeks???
Andy’s a Welcher
ew
By TN Gelding
February 9, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this
BDAtlanta
February 9, 2009 8:48 AM
You’ve got “Knee” mixed up with Isakson, but your premise is correct. Did you notice they made the help on buying a car, something that would help lower income folks, a tax deduction instead of a tax credit? They must want GM and Ford to go bankrupt.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 9:03 AM | Link to this
BDAtlanta,
I think you are referring to Johnny Isakson. He proposed the $15k tax cut and it was added to the bill but he says he will not vote for the bill. I guess deep down inside, he knows that his proposal is crap. As for Chambliss, he’s a worthless pile of crap that I would not waste someone else’s spit on. The coward disrupted a meeting where the guy from the sugar plant was giving testimony and started grilling the guy that was actually trying to save lives and now the coward, Chambliss runs away from it — with a limp. Chambliss, the coward, did everything but come out and call the guy that was trying to save lives a killer — a murderer. Saxby Chamliss is just another worthless Republican lapdog coward. By the way, he sure was proud of his “work” in getting that gigantic (I think it was over 300 billion) farm bill passed. Does anyone even have a clue who profited from that. By the way, did I tell you that SAXBY CHAMBLISS is a COWARD.
By BDAtlanta
February 9, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this
my bad. I meant Isakson.
By TN Gelding
February 9, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this
reality
February 9, 2009 7:53 AM
Most seniors can afford to pay for their own prescriptions and the ones that can’t could get help another way. The over-medication of our seniors is a national disgrace.
I never bought the food or medicine argument. Food stamps are available to the truly needy.
By Swami Dave
February 9, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this
DB:
I found it interesting that you challenged DaveR’s mention of the fallout from CRA (created by Carter / expanded by Clinton) by associating it with George W Bush’s actions toward an “ownership society”.
The reality being that conservatives (myself included) would have taken issue with all three from the basic principle that there are people who through either their own behavior or the current situation are not able to uphold the responsibilities of home ownership. The basis for ownership is your ability to uphold the responsiblities associated with it.
Legislation mandating loans to higher risk borrowers or requiring that banks charge rates to higher risk borrowers equitable to borrowers who are lower risk is simple financial insanity (as most conservatives have been saying for years).
Frankly, in George W Bush’s case, that was another case (like Medicare Prescription drugs) where he was setting a legislative agenda outside of sound financial / budget principles and many conservatives (myself included) opposed it. It was just another ever-expanding government entitlement that that would further saddle taxpayers with the bill for what another interest group wanted (but clamoured for as a “need”).
This so-called “stimulus” bill simply represents further wasteful socialist deficit spending that saddles more trillions onto the backs of your children and grandchildren funding things for current beneficiaries that they should provide for themselves. It is simply a further expansion of the entitlement class who have no incentive to provide for themselves so long as the socialists promise to steal from earners to fund the unproductive lifestyles.
-Swami Dave
By CherokeeDave
February 9, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
Bookman’s At It Again: Let’s see, Reagan in office, Congress controlled by the Democrats who have a majority and are responsible for the taxing and spending decision, Bush Senior in office and again, the Democracts controlled Congress, again, Tax And Spend. OOps, Clinton in office and the Repubulicans lower the deficit because they control the tax and spend decision and have a majority. Sorry Bookman, you analysis is a typical liberal “Joke” with no basis in substance. Go back to your desk and work on that some more. I don’t and have never agreed with Bush Jr. except on his tax cuts. We blew it when we should have been cutting or slowing the government spending while all this was in place. There is a BIG difference between Conservatism, the current Republican Party just as there is no difference between the current Democratic Party and Liberal Radicalism.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this
It’s getting tough to keep the story straight.
Bush is/is not real conservative.
Bush is greatest/worst president.
Obama fiscal polices are socialist/continuance of Bush.
By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr
February 9, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this
Jay, Jay, Jay, what does all of this have to do with the performance of POTUS and the Democrat Congress. I thought Obama moved us into a post-partisan period when finger pointing would cease. You should quit trying to blame everything on President Bush. Let’s look at the current facts:
a) Polls show that barely more than 50% supports a stimulus plan and that the overwhelming majority favor tax cuts over spending;
b) POTUS promised that 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut when he was campaigning
c) POTUS let Reid/and Pelotio highjack the stimulus process
d) Rarely, in life, are one’s worst fears wholly confirmed, but, in the case of Obama, it looks as if our worst fears have been confirmed. Obama is not a leader, from nominating tax cheats to loosing control of the stimulus, the first month of the Obama administration has the feel of herding squirrels during a pillow fight in turn of the century bedlam.
Say what you will about President Bush (and history will ultimately be very kind), but when he determined the right thing to do, he went ahaead and did it. Even with enough votes to get things done, POTUS has neither the skill or backbone to move the country forward. It is truly a shame.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
Republicans — they lie to themselves long enough and even they start to believe their lies. Of course, they never provide facts to back up their claims because they cannot provide facts to back up their lies. Instead, they just continue to post their lies and proclaim them to be facts. Pathetic.
By Andy the Welcher
February 9, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this
Mrs. G, You sound surprised?
I’m wondering why the folks who 3 weeks ago were postulating that History will judge the W years as one of the greatest presidency’s ever, are now railing on about his failures and trying to tie Obama’s 3 week old presidency to W’s failures…
Is it because, like Andy, all Rethuglicans are Welchers???
And whatever happened to the Corporal? I hope he wasn’t “called home” because his work was done.
ew
By Thinkwell
February 9, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this
Is the bank bailout failure best explained as “casting pearls before swine? ( Why do you think they call it a Piggy Bank?)
I hope the lurkers appreciate the furious reform the trolls on this blog have commenced.
You’re welcome.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this
YES, let’s post some polling data shall we….
Obama Has Upper Hand in Stimulus Fight Obama’s 67% approval rating on the stimulus is more than twice that of Republicans
Again, Obama offered them the carrot, but they picked the stick.
By JAY BOOKMAN
February 9, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this
Cherokee Dave writes:
“Let’s see, Reagan in office, Congress controlled by the Democrats who have a majority and are responsible for the taxing and spending decision.”
Two points: First, the GOP controlled the Senate for most of Reagan’s term, and with the help of “Blue Dog” Democrats basically controlled the House on budget and tax items as well.
Second, as I wrote, the final budget passed in those years was almost exactly the total that Reagan had requested. I have gone back and checked that myself. Blaming Congress when they spent almost exactly what Reagan asked just won’t work.
By rcs
February 9, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this
When the Democrats regained control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt was $8.67 trillion.
In the less than two years Pelosi and the Democrats have been in charge the national debt has grown to $10.33 trillion. That is a 19% increase in under two years.
Add another trillion for the Spendulus plan, that’s a $2.66 trillion dollar increase in only 2 years which equates to a 30.7% increase.
By N-GA
February 9, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this
Just a few thoughts.
By MorningStar
February 9, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this
By Bud Wiser February 9, 2009 7:30 AM I might be curious as to your impression of the half trillion or so in cold hard taxpayer cash blasted out the window, and nobody knows where it went,
I too am a bit curious. What happened to all that $ the tax cuts for the rich and famous went under the W admin.? Oh never mind; a good time was had by all, and the children of the middle class and working poor will be paying for the useless war for how many years????
By Dave R February 9, 2009 7:41 AM | this “mess” was caused by the meltdown in our financial markets that had little, if anything, to do with defici
Ooooh doggies. This ‘mess’ was created by a war that never should have happened, and lack of federal regulations on loans etc. etc. What happened to the theory that ‘big business will initiate their own regulations.’ Yea right, and I have a couple acres of land a buzzard wouldn’t use for a roost to sell ya.
By Deborah February 9, 2009 8:18 AM Yes, Curious Observer tax cuts for the wealthy and business are the ticket—of course such people enjoyed these goodies the past eight years (and during Reagan) and did nothing but STEAL from the American people, move jobs overseas, cut or freeze wages and benefits, slash and eliminate retirement accounts, let their infrastructure crumble—all this in the face of record company profits. They took the money and ran because Bush and his free market crap allowed it.
Well said Deborah.
By BDAtlanta February 9, 2009 8:48 AM $15,000 tax break (tax cut) for home buyers. That’s not going to help the middle class or the po
Yep, you’re right BD Atlanta. One must have a job to buy anything. Unfortunately unemployment insurance, the 401K that was hopefully being saved for retirement (if one was earning sufficient wages to have 401K) don’t last forever. Oh poo, I suspect some idiot will materalize shortly to discuss how ‘secure’ they are. Gotta watch those braggarts; they are nasty little people. Checked the unemployment rate for Georgia recently?
By dilligaff
February 9, 2009 9:47 AM | Link to this
Swami Dave.. thanks for stating the conservative perspective so well.. socialist spending is wrong regardless of the ‘party in charge’.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this
Andy The Welcher
Surprised is not quite the right word….
amused perhaps, or entertained?
I guess I feel like a gawker slowing down to see the cars smothered, splattered and covered on the expressway…..
By Disgusted
February 9, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this
Andy the Welcher: Corporal has been notably silent ever since he was exposed by Bookman as a Johns Creek fat cat. It seems that Corporal committed the lapse of copying one of his posts onto an AJC Letter to the Editor and providing his name and address. It seems he wasn’t that COOL. I suppose if I lived in a million-dollar mansion I would be spouting the Republican line too.
By Ima Pol Crook
February 9, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this
These political hack crooks will never change until we throw them out of office! Also the useless Lt Gov Cagle SHOULD be thrown out of office for blocking or doing nothing about the critical trauma care situation in Ga. just to attempt to buy votes in his run for Governor! Perhaps if he is in a critical accident below Macon, in deep S Ga he will change his mind-IF he makes it to Macon or Savannah alive for treatment in a major trauma center!!! He is a proven jerk.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2009/02/08/legperdue_0208.html
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this
rsc
please define gained control, and compare and contrast that concept with cloture.
By Mrs. Godzilla
February 9, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this
Just heard a great idea….
How to get the old base to support the stimulus bill….call it an economic SURGE.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 9, 2009 10:02 AM | Link to this
I always wondered who the liberals would whine about after Bush was out of office but I never suspected that it would be me.
Glad I could get under your skin, loser.
ew
By tcoach
February 9, 2009 10:03 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer, When you speak of republicans, are you meaning actual politicians, those who vote republican, those who are registered republicans, those who have voted for a republican, or those that would vote for a republican.
Without a better clarification it is hard for one to assess your post. You are not the only one that speaks of republican or democrat in generalizations, just the one that seems obsessed the most today.
I find it hard to believe a person of such claimed intelligence and knowledge of life would be so quick to judge others based on one aspect of their lives. I can maybe understand if you are speaking about the politicians only. They have chosen to be identified with the actions and words of their chosen party. However if you are claiming that all that have voted that way feel as you claim they do is just foolish. For you to be delusional enough to think you know how all of those who may consider themselves rep. think and believe you truly are one of the more bigoted self centered individuals I have ever come across.
I also saw that you have an issue with people not posting facts. Well so far this morning you have posted numerous 4 or more times, yet only one of your post had any factual information in it @9:03. That was the one that you were actually correcting another poster trying to make false claims about a politician. Yet none of your rants and raves have been followed by any factual information, only your opinions about the differences in the way ALL republicans act so bad and how ALL democrat candidates act so honorably.
Making sweeping generalizations usually is not the best idea when trying to make a point, as almost all generalizations can be proven false by at least 1 person.
By MorningStar
February 9, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this
By Taxpayer February 9, 2009 9:31 AM Republicans — they lie to themselves long enough and even they start to believe their lies.
Pavlov’s doggies come to mind. Example: The economy is good; the economy is good; the economy is good; war on terrur; war on terrur; war on terrur; and eventually the average mentality will buy in. Pathetic but true. I will hand it to the R’s. They are the greatest when it comes to marketing deception. I stand in awe!!!!!!!!
By getalife
February 9, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this
The President is leaving the Washington bubble to talk to real Americans, I suggest the gop do the same.
Gallup poll shows 59% disapprove for the party of no. We are seeing long lines to get few jobs with very few hiring.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 9, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this
{{{{Last year, an anxious, depressed 17-year-old boy was admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He was refusing to drink water. Worried about drought related to climate change, the young man was convinced that if he drank, millions of people would die. The Australian doctors wrote the case up as the first known instance of “climate change delusion.”-Boston.Com}}}}
Nice job, liberals.
Keeping with tradition, the libs and their bright ideas causing far more harm than their fake enemy ever could.
hopeandchange.duh
By CommunistAJC
February 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this
WRONG BOOKMAN.
How Government Created the Financial Crisis Research shows the failure to rescue Lehman did not trigger the fall panic.
By JOHN B. TAYLOR
Many are calling for a 9/11-type commission to investigate the financial crisis. Any such investigation should not rule out government itself as a major culprit. My research shows that government actions and interventions — not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy — caused, prolonged and dramatically worsened the crisis. [Commentary] David Gothard
The classic explanation of financial crises is that they are caused by excesses — frequently monetary excesses — which lead to a boom and an inevitable bust. This crisis was no different: A housing boom followed by a bust led to defaults, the implosion of mortgages and mortgage-related securities at financial institutions, and resulting financial turmoil.
Monetary excesses were the main cause of the boom. The Fed held its target interest rate, especially in 2003-2005, well below known monetary guidelines that say what good policy should be based on historical experience. Keeping interest rates on the track that worked well in the past two decades, rather than keeping rates so low, would have prevented the boom and the bust. Researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have provided corroborating evidence from other countries: The greater the degree of monetary excess in a country, the larger was the housing boom.
The effects of the boom and bust were amplified by several complicating factors including the use of subprime and adjustable-rate mortgages, which led to excessive risk taking. There is also evidence the excessive risk taking was encouraged by the excessively low interest rates. Delinquency rates and foreclosure rates are inversely related to housing price inflation. These rates declined rapidly during the years housing prices rose rapidly, likely throwing mortgage underwriting programs off track and misleading many people.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123414310280561945.html
By CommunistAJC
February 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this
Cherokee, where is your proof that Boortz said that? You said “I remember” so prove it.
By N.J.
February 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Link to this
Over the last 30 years, Republicans have left huge deficits, while the only Democrat left projected surpluses. All that was needed was to not borrow from the Social Security Trust fund to pay for useless military ventures to realize the government surpluses.
This started with Reagan, continued with Bush 41, was interupted for 8 years, and then continued by Bush 43.
Where did it start:
Reagan Leaving Many Costly Domestic Problems, G.A.O. Tells Bush
LEAD: The top Federal auditor told President-elect Bush today that the Government would immediately have to address many domestic problems neglected by the Reagan Administration and that the costs would be staggering.
The top Federal auditor told President-elect Bush today that the Government would immediately have to address many domestic problems neglected by the Reagan Administration and that the costs would be staggering.
Comptroller General Charles A. Bowsher, the head of the General Accounting Office, said Mr. Bush should rethink the country’s worldwide military commitments, strengthen Federal regulation of banks and stockbrokers and provide new Federal incentives for private investment in low-rent housing for poor people.
Officials said no comptroller general in the accounting office’s 67-year history had volunteered such advice to a President-elect or, for that matter, so heavily implied criticism of an outgoing President’s management.
The comptroller general is a nonpartisan official appointed by the President. Mr. Bowsher was appointed by President Reagan in October 1981 for a 15-year term…
…The reports also call for more Federal regulation of industries and activities deregulated in the Reagan years. One report said that almost one-third of the nation’s savings and loan institutions were ”insolvent or nearly so,” as a result of ”poorly implemented deregulation, mismanagement and depressed regional economies.”..
…”After years of ‘Fed-bashing,’ the new President needs to change course,” it said, adding that the morale of Federal workers could be greatly improved if the President used public forums to express support for public servants…
November 22, 1988
That is to say, in one fell swoop, a Reagan appointee simply denied the validity of the neo-conservative ideology.
By Swami Dave
February 9, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the comments Dilligaff.
Things are clear when you view from a high-level perspective based on principles.
Take for example our economy…..
If one looks at our economy like a locomotive, the biggest problems are not the productive members of society who act as its financial engine pulling the train. The problems are the cabooses who hitch on to get pulled. Unfortunately, through the socialist liberal policies implemented by government acting outside of its limited charter, there is minimized incentive for cabooses to become engines and pull their own weight. Even more damaging is that their policies actually serve as disincentives for engines who see the unproductive allowed to sit back and be pulled.
Logic would dictate in this situation (when we need the train to move more and move it faster) that one should act in ways to motivate, develop, and reward engines; not allow more cabooses to hitch on and ride.
In the case of the “stimulus”, it is an example of doing the wrong thing with the wrong goal. That is not a blueprint for success. That reality bodes ill for President Obama, Congressional Democrats, and a small cadre of Republicans who enabled them.
Unfortunately, it bodes ill for America as well. This will serve evidence that elections have consequences.
-Swami Dave
By RealityKing
February 9, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this
Jay and his merry band of drunken liberals want us all to overlook Obama’s shrinkage factor.
Follow the money people! Democrats controled congress up until 1994, when republicans won control and balanced the budget…, as promised. Remember that “contract with America” thing?? But hey, if Jay still want to believe in Clinton.., fine.
Of course history does see it differently, and it will never forget about Clinton, 9/11, and the two noble wars on tryanny that followed. What was that about war time spending again? Not that republicans have been all the rave at reducing government growth. Quite the oppisite. But the GDP growth is the key here. Small debt increases with GDP growth, not bad(before 2006). Huge debt increases with GDP shrinkage, very bad(after 2006, 110th liberal congress).
Don’t let Jay and his merry band of liberals in the state media fool you. Follow the money! And the Obama’s progressive shinkage factor!!
By Earl
February 9, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
Yes, of course…let’s make all states like California, bankrupt them all with big government spending. Who wouldn’t want to live in a state that’s losing jobs and population and the only, the ONLY growth in the statewide job market in California is government jobs in the last foiur years. The we’ll make Clayton County the model for all shools to adopt and they too can have a kid with a 1.2 GPA and still be class valedictorian. Sweet. And we womder why the bulk of home loan defauts were issued to democrats. What a look of shock on my face.
By Thinkwell
February 9, 2009 10:27 AM | Link to this
36 hours till 3.14159
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this
tcoach,
You should not let the existence of “outliers” detract from the basic argument. For example, Republicans (politicians and their loyal followers) are now on this hypocritical “kick” about suddenly seeing the light about deficit spending and huge national debts and that characterizes the Republican party and follower’s stance in general. The outliers in this case are Collins, Specter and Snowe but I’m not going to bother mentioning outliers (unless my focus is on them) because they are clearly the exception — not the rule. Now, if you want to make an argument that generalizations should not be used because there will always exist outliers, then whatever floats your boat, dude. Statistically speaking, that would likely place you in a population that does not appreciate or understand statistics. But, that’s OK too. To each his/her own. Out for a while. I’ve got outdoor chores and that’s a good thing because that means the weather is nice.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
February 9, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this
To N-GA @9:46
US industries need to collectively develop a marketing program whereby goods made in the USA have distinctive tags. The government need not require goods to be made in the USA, but the consumer can be sold on the idea.
That’s a good idea. Sometimes it’s almost impossible to find on the box where a product is made. I’d rather pay a little more for U.S. made goods than to pay taxes for unemployment benefit for people who have lost their jobs. Either way you pay and I’d rather keep Americans working.
By RealityKing
February 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this
2008 GDP, 14.6T. Add in the Obama’s progressive shrinkage factor. 2009 GDP 14T, if not less.
2008 Debt 10.6T. Add in the Obama’s free spending factor, 1T this year, 1T+ next year. 2009 debt, 12.6T
12.6 debt / 14 GDT = 90% In just 2 years!
No. Obama’s idea of change is obviously BIG trouble! One that will have a negative impact on generations to come..
By CommunistAJC
February 9, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this
PULLED:
As were quite a few others. Commie, you have run afoul of the previously announced rule limiting off-topic posts to two per thread.
You are WAY over that.
By lovelyliz
February 9, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this
The GOP could vote fast enough to bailout Wall Street when directed by a Republican president but when it comes to helping Main Street, suddenly they are all experts on Karl Marx.
By Earl
February 9, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this
Once the newly elected democrats take care of all our economic woes and being poor will be a thing of the past like a rotary phone, then they’ll tackle the crime problems we have all over the nation. I can’t wait! I mean come on now folks, who has ever lived in a city that’s ran by a majority of democrats and not felt safe any and all places you go. There’s no crime in Atlanta is there; or DC; or Detroit.. what about New Orleans…just to name a few. There’s no increase in legal gun sales in these cities in the past year, the numbers are all a result of media fabrication. Right? I don’t see more lines at the firing ranges on Saturday, nah…they’re there for the breakfast, yeah right. There wasn’t a 65 % increase in gun owners getting a permit to carry a legal weapon this year in Atlanta, it’s all lies and it’s all the fault of Bush. I am sick of seeing all these young republican Bush loving teens on television stealing jeans and flat screen televisons. I am sick of seeing all these robbing crews of young Bush loving republican gangs out there. Something must be done now!
By AmVet
February 9, 2009 10:43 AM | Link to this
Take it to the bank, neo-cons (cuz you got no real deposits to make). There will never be a cure for your identity crisis.
At this point in your short, and soon to be over history, you Republiconned have no freaking idea of who you are and what you believe. And ever since Nixon, you’ve been hopelessly lost and terminally screwed.
You have some vague idea that it has something to do with the God Reagan, trickle-down-your-thigh voodoo, tax cuts for the very wealthy and with ever escalating corporate welfare to buy votes.
You think it has to lots do with outdated, irrelevant, bible-thumping charlatans and agents of intolerance.
You pray it has everything to do with violence, crusades and killing.
And after decades of irrefutable evidence to the contrary on all of these matters, you still don’t even realize that you naively bought into all of this nonsense, sold to you by your elected steal and spend “leaders” and your ignorant oracles on TV and radio.
Karma…
By lovelyliz
February 9, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this
The GOP could not vote fast enough to bailout Wall Street when directed by a Republican president but when it comes to helping Main Street, suddenly they are all experts on Karl Marx.
By Paul
February 9, 2009 10:45 AM | Link to this
Hi N-GA
How’ve you been?
On-topic
I think it’s been pretty well established most nat’l debt accumulated under Republican administrations. Realization of this is what finally frustrated many Reps who swung votes in 06 and 08.
But assuming other than political junkies will realize this or care misses the point. Dems are now in charge. Reps left a mess (and I still don’t believe many Dems in the last 8 years in Congress offered much in the way of lower spending - simply voting or harping against the Bush tax cuts doesn’t help - especially since part of it cut lower-income taxpayers completely off the rolls - something Democrats were for). Americans generally have short attention spans. So they’ve turned to Dems to ‘fix’ it.
Posted here before, but bears repeating. Pres Obama said last week he has three years to turn it around or his party will seek another nominee. Even then, Reps will hold the upper hand - will say “you had your chance, you indebted us for generations and you didn’t fix the problem.” But if it does turn around, Americans will be about as concerned with the debts Pres Obama incurred as, well…. the debts Reagan and Bush incurred or the future SS/entitlements train wreck Obama has begun to address.
So (my gosh, another sports analogy) it’s loads of fun to remind each other of who served and who volleyed last, but the fact of the matter is, the ball’s in the Dem’s court and they have one chance to pull it off or nearly ensure defeat in 2012.
By Bosch
February 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this
Hey N-GA,
Glad to see you back - I hope you have been traveling or doing something fun.
Good points. Well said.
By Cardinal Red
February 9, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this
Bookman, did the demwits jump on board the republicrats spending in those eight years? You bet’cha.
Did the demwit constituency re-elect their hogs? You bet’cha.
Did the repub constituency re-elect their hogs? No eff’in way.
See the difference? HELL NO!
By RealityKing
February 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this
Obama shrinkage factor:
68% Debt to GDP -2008
100% Debt to GDP -2012
Change you can believe in..
By MorningStar
February 9, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this
JAY, do you have some means to limit these ‘cut and paste’ idiots from monopolizing space. No one, I’m assuming (a dangerous word) reads the junk anyway. I’m not for limiting free speech. Good Gosh! Some of our GGG and GGGG Grands were Rev. War Veterans!!! But geez! Shouldn’t a post be limited to XX number of words????
Just a’wonderin.
By Bosch
February 9, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this
Paul,
I don’t think Congress or the tooth fairy or anyone except corporate American can fix this problem, and when they start realizing they can’t give all their profits to a few certain people at the top, then things will get going again.
By lovelyliz
February 9, 2009 10:54 AM | Link to this
I will listen to any Republican who consistently voted against all the Bush era mega-spending programs to include the unfettered bailout of Wall Street. I may not agree with everything they have to say, but I will listen.
As for the GOPers who never met a Republican spending bill between 2000-2008 that they didn’t like, you had you chance and now it’s time to stop the hypocrisy. Remember, YouTube and Jon Stewart are going to be around for a really long time.
By Paul
February 9, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this
AmVet
This is for you and Management, as you’ve pretty well staked out both sides of the global warming/climate change spectrum. But anyone else who’s interested - read on.
I’ve stated in the past I believe climate change to be a fact but am concerned about the methodology to determine human impact and costs to mitigate. Not just costs, but level of effectiveness. Add to that the politicization (and personal enrichment) by the Gore types and cynicism has room to grow.
Well, yesterday I turned on the tv and was scrolling thru the channels and here was a very methodical presentation on polar ice melt, which quickly developed into an overall climate change presentation. It was by a Dr. David Long, professor at BYU - titled, Microwaves, Icebergs and Global Warming. It addressed nearly all my points of questioning - used mathematical models to discount human contribution to show only nature-caused, critiqued the historical models, gave reasonable forecasts.
Also made a point I’ve held - regardless of anything else, it just makes sense that humans pumping large amounts of items such as CO2 into the atmosphere can’t be a good thing for the environment and efforts to reduce that in the name of conservation will likely also have a beneficial effect agreeable to global warming advocates.
His presentation is here:
Link: [Microwaves, Icebergs and Global Warming]*http://byubnew.byu.edu/talks/Talk.aspx?id=2994)
It’s complete enough, rational enough, balanced enough that I think it should be required viewing before discussing the topic.
By MorningStar
February 9, 2009 11:06 AM | Link to this
By Bosch February 9, 2009 10:52 AM Paul, I don’t think Congress or the tooth fairy or anyone except corporate American can fix this problem, and when they start realizing they can’t give all their profits to a few certain people at the top, then things will get going again.
Bosch, they will not ‘realize’ anything. It’s the nature of the beast. Good people exist everywhere; private industry, local and state government and the federal government (choke, choke), but yes they do!
MANY good employees work for XYZ company. Will XYZ do what needs to be done, unless regulated? NOPE! Not in a million years.
By tcoach
February 9, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer, So I am to take it to mean that you are only referring to actual politicians when you say republican.
About generalizations, even though according to you I either cannot or care not to understand statistics.
Basically you used that argument the same way many racist, bigots, and sexist clown use it to give them a reason for the vile things they characterise on an entire group. I have voted republican more times than I have democrat, and I am sure you would be shocked at many of the beliefs I have politically. But you just as a racist to an opposite race, you would never know because you have your day so planned around hate and anger that you fail to see that some out there are not as hate filled or angry as you are.
I am too assume that yo must only mean politicians, because if not then it would be rightfully just for all to assume you are indeed a non-taxpayer. You claim to hate republican and lump others into groups based on your assertions. Well then based on a logical assumption you would be considered a democrat.(don’t know if you are or not) Therefore as we have seen in the recent weeks many politically democratic members seem to think it is fine to call for higher standards and credibility. They also call for more accountability and honesty. Then it is found out to be all lip service. These politicians never believed any of the trash they spewed out. If they did like you then they would have paid their taxes.
So that settles it according to the rule of taxpayer, no democrat shall ever have credibility again on any subject involving standards or taxes, since they have proven to be corrupt in both.
So I say to you the dirty non-taxpayer, pay your taxes it is as your vice president said the patriotic thing to do.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this
{{{{President Barack Obama waves and learns the door on Marine One is much shorter than he is, and bumps his head, Monday, Feb 9, 2009, as he leaves for a trip to Andrews Air Force Base.}}}}
Geez, what a dunce.
By Paul
February 9, 2009 11:29 AM | Link to this
Here’s that global warming link again
Link: Microwaves, Icebergs and Global Warming
Bosch
I just don’t look at a for-profit organization doing anything not in their economic self-interest. I don’t see doing nothing as an option. So that leaves only our representatives to put aside partisanship and political self interest and work for the common good.
You can stop laughing now.
By CommunistAJC
February 9, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this
BOOKMAN, what rules? Where on your blogs have you announced “rules?”
Jay Bookman = canceled subscriptions.
By fearless fosdik
February 9, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this
For all his blogging from morning to late night 7 days a week Mr. AJC/DNC is now running low on items to bash democrats. 11:!5 post. If I remember correctly AJC, Mr. Bush used to bonk his head not only on the door of Marine One, but on cement (falling off his bicycle). Tripping over his segway, bashing his face after choking on a pretzel, and other miscues that left bruises and cuts on his face, arms and hands. I’m sure a knock on the noggin climbing into a helicopter is not that big of a deal.
By the way AJC get a life! Monday thru Sunday blogging is not good for ones health.
By MorningStar
February 9, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
By lovelyliz February 9, 2009 10:41 AM The GOP could vote fast enough to bailout Wall Street when directed by a Republican president but when it comes to helping Main Street, suddenly they are all experts on Karl Marx.
Helping Main Street? Why Golly Geez, that would be COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST or some other poppycock!
Ms. Liz, we must remember that life begins at conception and ends a birth!!!
By Bosch
February 9, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this
Yes, Paul, I think that too, but when they realize that they have the option of going out of business period, or being more efficient with their cash - then things will change.
And if the government would stop giving them money when they do stupid a$$ things like give their CEO millions and their stock holders dividends on money they didn’t earn - instead it was handed to them, and learn to invest a money back into the company, then things will change.
But yeah, I think that will happen when unicorns start running down my street in herds, and pixies start flying around my yard sprinkling every thing with pixie dust.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this
Well, I finish my first round of chores and come in to catch my breath and check to see what’s been posted and what do I find — tcoach with his expected rants full of lies and name-calling that he/she/it espouses to be so against.
Do you want to engage me in a discussion regarding who posts unsubstantiated lies, tcoach. Do you really think yourself up to the challenge or will you continue with more of your little episodes. How about we start with your closing line, tcoach:
“So I say to you the dirty non-taxpayer, pay your taxes it is as your vice president said the patriotic thing to do.”
Care to back that statement up with some proof. You claim that I am a “dirty non-taxpayer”. Will you cower and make some claim that you were not addressing me when you say “Taxpayer” in your opening sentence or some other cowardly excuse. The label, “Republican” suits you well, tcoach — statistically speaking of course.
By AJC/DNC Management
February 9, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this
{{{{“I’m much happier,” Sen. Jim DeMint told me between votes on the stimulus. “Our message was so muddled with Bush in the White House, often going the big-spending approach, that we could not define ourselves in any other way.”-DCExaminer}}}}
Yeah, what he says.
By getalife
February 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this
Take it like a man commie.
I think they have seized on the argument to destroy the gop in debate:
Summers To GOP: Don’t Lecture Me On History After Last 8 Years.
Ouch.
By TN Gelding
February 9, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this
RealityKing
February 9, 2009 10:50 AM
And George W. Bush ia responsible for 100% of it.
By Bosch
February 9, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this
Paul,
Hit the post too soon,
but in other words, I don’t think the government can alone can fix this - I think the only spending that should be done is in infracture that will be used for mass transit, new energy implementation, and unemployment benefits.
And I agree with what N-GA said a while ago, even though I’ve been going back and forth on this a bit, but no tax cuts. Like Sumners said, we can’t afford it.
ByteMe mentioned that the other day, everyone is in too much debt and if the middle class folks got a tax cut, it wouldn’t do much good - it’d be like those stimulus checks (if even that good).
By DB, Gwinnettian
February 9, 2009 11:44 AM | Link to this
Back for a bit.
The American public gives President Barack Obama a strong 67% approval rating for the way in which he is handling the government’s efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill.
By Taxpayer
February 9, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
tcoach,
come on out, tcoach. Let’s see you post something on topic. Post something factual about the national debt and about deficits and about the hypocrite Republicans, tcoach. You manage to find time to single me out and complain about what I post but you cannot find the time in your busy little schedule to do a little research on the topic and post something. Well, tcoach, here’s a little link with some facts for you to digest. Try reading and understanding the information presented and then challenge me to a discussion that is on-topic. Or, will you continue to fit my earlier description of Republicans whom I have challenged. What will it be, tcoach?
By CommunistAJC
February 9, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
getalife, Summers is a moron. Take what like a man? A hack so-called journalist who works for a struggling rag of a newspaper who pulls my postings because of some made up rules he never shared with us? No thanks, getalife.
By Shawny
February 9, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this
GOP spendthrifts put us in this mess….hmmm. You are right. If they had acted like GOP instead of democrats, then things would have been better. Their chickens came home to roost, now we have real democrats in their congressional seats.
By Greg Mendel
February 9, 2009 12:42 PM | Link to this
Swami Dave:
Your locomotive/caboose analogy is a good start for understanding America’s current economic troubles. Unfortunately, most analogies, like bumper stickers, oversimplify.
Generally, unproductive people (the cabooses) benefit (are pulled along by) productive people (the locomotives) in our society. Unproductive people are not all deadbeats demanding handouts. Some are disabled, sick, and some are working two or three menial jobs. But, let’s just stick with “cabooses” as the term for all unproductive people.
Last fall, the locomotives, whose goals were to get to the station way ahead of the cabooses and all the freight and passenger cars in the middle, ran out of coal and off the tracks while chasing shortcuts.
Now, if the locomotives can’t use the freight for fuel, the passengers have to get out and push. The locomotives have become the cabooses at the front of the train.
(As I said, analogies are never perfect.)
The train wreck wasn’t a result of socialism or capitalism. It was a result of arrogance, incompetence and greed: botch-u-lism.
By rightofcenter
February 10, 2009 8:54 AM | Link to this
Taxpayer, You and your comrades on this blog really crack me up. You (and others) consistently call those you disagree with vile and meanspirited names, then you preach against “intolerance”. Guess who called people this: pathetic excuses for human life forms. No, it wasn’t those bad ole Republicans, it was you, Mr. Tolerance. I think that qualifies you as a hater.
By Brandy
February 12, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this
So after 9 years of secret private meetings where the Democrats were not even ask to participate, the Republican cry babies scream that they are not being consulted. Give me a break. They are screaming about the deficit and large spending, now that the Democrats are in control. where were they when they all supported W Bush and his enormous spending and TARP with no regulations or transparency. Where were the conservatives when the most expensive ill equipted embassy was being built in Iraq. They don’t approve of Dems. spending.