I just hear everyone blaming Obama’s “out of control spending” but it just looks like most of the spending was done under Bush’s term, not Obama’s. Much of the spending was already in place before he took office, and the recession killed off the revenues via tax, hence the deficits.
So while we can blame the recession for the deficit, can’t we argue that Bush is largely to blame for the fact that spending is so high to begin with – over wasteful things? Or were those spending changes made with sufficient plan to have tax revenues pay for them, as we see that the deficit gap wasn’t large until the 2008 crash (aka is it unfair to blame Bush for the recession that killed the revenues?).
I am severely confused. Can we or can we not blame Bush’s spending for the current state of spending? Were they properly financed and then simply hit by a streak of bad luck because of the recession? Were they “wasteful expenses” that were still financed efficiently through taxation schemes? How is this so when we lowered taxes?
To be as direct as possible, this is more of a political question than a factual one. Sure you can blame Bush for contributing to the deficit – the tax cuts were totally fiscally irresponsible, the wars have cost a lot of money and there was no attempt at all to pay for them, and personally I would not relieve Bush for his role in creating the conditions for the recession. Just right there, between the tax cuts, the cost of the wars, and the economic slowdown, you have the three principle reasons why the deficit is large today.
One could say with a straight face that Obama now has the responsibility to get us out of the mess that Bush created. I suppose that’s true… but I also think that we ought to cut Obama some slack in that it’s awfully hard to turn around an entire economy in just two years with all the problems that he has had to deal with.
Thanks for posting this Mr Smashy. I find that when somebody posts about “your Messiah”, it helps me to identify blindly partisan positions, and greatly assists me in assessing the worth of your other opinions.
And as has already been pointed out; Yes, intelligent people change their views because situations change. It seems better than blindly holding to an ideology and ignoring all evidence - the GOP way.
It seems the Republican’s and Democrat’s plans are 99.4% in agreement on spending cuts. The sticking points are the republicans angling for political gotchas/empty gestures (e.g. having this vote again in six months, voting on a Balanced Budget Amendment and such).
A person who cared about facts might note that the minority party often had a few people who voted against the debt ceiling when there were ample votes to pass it.
This would be, if a person cared about facts, a political gesture.
It is nothing like now, where idiot, uninformed, yokels are actually trying to make sure the debt ceiling isn’t passed. And are threatening a global financial meltdown if they don’t get their way.
I’m not sure how anyone who isn’t a complete and utter partisan could not call that terrorism. The right is saying, “I will destroy the world economy if I don’t get what I want. *Exactly *what I want.”
How is that any different from any number of Cobra Commander’s plots?
The demonization of the other side’s motives is generally an indicator of a closed, and small mind.
As for the messiah bit, I guess the whoosh wasn’t obvious. I know many of the lefties here aren’t happy with him, basically because he isn’t fulfilling their socialist dreams. Of course they’ll still vote for the guy.
I would argue that sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. And most of the time, they are just one input into what does or does not increase revenues to Government.
Was this due entirely because of the tax cuts? I don’t think so, but you are free to disagree. Some of it was the tax cuts spawning new economic development, some was natural recovery from the 2001 recession due to the Clinton-era NASDAQ/.com bubble and the 9/11 attacks, and some may even be due to the increased federal spending. Who knows.
Considering how frequently you do it, no, it’s not obvious at all.
At some point, I expect rational, reasonable people to question whether their deliberately repeated and mostly poorly received “jokes” express some hidden bias.
Outlier socialists aside (another whoosh? It’s hard to tell with you), most progressives will vote for him, yes.
South Park’s “Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich” debate springs to mind. If I have to choose between a guy slashing my arm with a knife or shooting me in the gut, I’ll choose the slashing. Just because I chose it doesn’t mean it’s ideal, it’s just the best of the options presented.
I’m sure you know this, so I don’t know what your implication is - that somebody like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, or Rick Perry is a better alternative? Unlikely thought process for anybody who voted for Obama in '08.
Gosh, that there’s some pretty good stuff, Smashy! And from the utterly non-partisan, candor-driven Washington Times! Hard to imagine a more non-biased source than the Washington Times aka The Moonie Press
Well, yeah, sorta kinda. You pour gasoline on a fire, and burn yer nuts off, is it because of the fire itself, or the gasoline. Yes! It is!
Drivel. The American economy is a consumer driven economy, if the consumers don’t have the money to buy loud, shiny crap, there is no point whatsoever in “investing” in the production of loud, shiny crap.
This makes no sense. The tax revenues that flow from tax cuts?
Ah. Well. Yes, of course. Supply side economics, the voodoo that you do so very, very badly.
And are we to take it that this Mr. Dwyer is, much like yourself, a non-partisan, unbiased independent observer? The name rings a knell…
