Reply to Conchobhar's vanden Heuvel article

When I first read this I hard time separating vanden Heuvel's points and opinions from Chait's. I'm blaming that on the NyQuil, so hopefully I can keep them strait this time around. And I really only want to explore one aspect of the article - the idea of party loyalty, group-think, hero-worship and unconditional support. I'm not going to defend Obama's record, but I'd feel more than a little silly bashing it at this point, seeing as how this was in reposes to a post in which I honored a website dedicated to listing out his accomplishments. (But I probably will anyway.) My opinion on Obama is fairly simple: I supported him in the primary, happily voted for him (esp. w/ Sarah Palin in the #2 spot on the other ticket!) and felt very hopeful that we would get a strong, popular, MODERATELY LIBERAL candidate... which, after eight years of living with the hard-right, seeing our civil liberties eroded away and the Supreme Court pulled solidly to the Right, SHOULD have seemed like a breath of fresh air, and a step in the right (not Right) direction. Of course, I'm as disappointed and disgusted as anyone, and Obama's judgment as a failure over all is well earned, even if the Right-leaning voters haven't the slightest clue as to WHY. Done. I will say no more about it.

BUT... I've certainly leaned pretty heavily over the years on the trope that the Republicans band together whilst the Democrats mostly bicker amongst themselves. That the Right votes (and thinks) in lockstep whilst the diversity of opinion on the Left - while idealistic and admirable - often times sabotages their ability to govern. And that's BEFORE you get someone who's as allergic to hard negotiation as Obama is.

And this article really challenges that trope. I mean, sure, me and a few of my fellow bloggers might criticize Obama (and/or Clinton) but I'm an engineer - a man of SCIENCE. Can this really be quantified? What does it say about this that idea that there are many historic examples of the OPPOSITE being true: that the Right is all disjointed and the Left are the ones that close ranks?
Well... I ain't ready to buy that just yet, but some reconciliation is obviously in order.

So I'm going to go through the examples one by one, starting with Reagan. I think that's the best place to start, because any discussion of MODERN Conservatism and Liberalism, or for that matter Democrats and Republicans really can only be traced back as far as Reagan, maybe Carter. You go back much farther and the parties just look too different form what they are today for these comparisons to be relevant. (In Nixon's day, there were still Conservative Democrats - mostly Southerners - and still some Socially Liberal, Libertarian Republicans. And while that all started to change in the 1960's with the Civil Rights Act (Johnson was right about losing the South, but he was being wildly optimistic that it would ONLY be 'for a generation!') it was finally beginning to cement itself during the Reagan Years. I would say the last nail in the coffin was 1994 and the Gingrich-led Congress, but they were certainly polishing the wood for it, so to speak, during the Reagan years.

Now Hoeft mentions how Reagan had his critics. He mentions the hard Right, because Reagan DID raise taxes several times. (Not something that's really associated with his legacy, but true all the same.) He also had his critics all over the map because of what was the first of what would eventually be twelve years of deficits that were insane in any time that wasn't a full blown World War. But in the end, as Dick Cheney so *ahem* eloquently put it: Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter. (Yeah, unless there's a Democrat in the White House, huh, Dick?) And whatever Right-Wing critics he had on tax policy, he pretty much silenced them in 1987, by lowering the top-tier tax rate to 28% - almost as low as what a median income earner was paying just the year before, while leaving the upper-middle class bracket at 33%. That's right - for three years we actually had a REGRESSIVE taxation system, for the only time in the history of the Federal Income Tax. And given Reagan's historic landslide in 1984, I would hardly say that these critics of the now iconic Republican were really all that significant. Or critical.

And besides... While Reagan might not have always enjoyed the full support of his party (though I question how often this really translated into "No" Votes) he was the one who STARTED the trend. What was his greatest legacy?

"Do not speak ill of your fellow Republican."

Party loyalty was the at very heart of the man's philosophy and is perhaps his most significant and lasting legacy. If the Right learned ANYTHING form the Reagan years (and given the Bush'43 years, I have my doubts) it was this.

So... Fast forward to 1992, and the Republican Primary and incumbent President George H.W. Bush (whom I consider to be the best or 2nd best Republican since Teddy Roosevelt) facing the music from the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Christian Coalition. Look... I don't mean to dismiss the destructive influence that this combination of bigotry and fanaticism has had on the Republican Party. Starting with Jerry Fallwell, then Pat Robertson and now James Dobson (and others) the Christian Right has been destroy the Republican Party for DECADES now. But if you are going to look at George H.W. Bush's loss in 1992, and try to figure out what happened, the elephant in the room can be summed up in two simple lines:

"It's the economy, stupid!" ~Bill Clinton

"Read my lips: No new taxes!" ~George H.W. Bush

That's it. That's all you need to know. George Bush was an INCUMBENT. Any nonsense from the likes of Buchanan or any others are inconsequential next to those two, simple lines. There was a recession. And while it's kind of stupid to blame a recession solely on the President, it's not as dumb if he just raised taxes (after basically saying he wouldn't.) As for the "read my lips" quote? Well, at least the Right is consistent, I'll give them that. Juts like Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet* Bush'41 never said he wouldn't RAISE taxes. He just wouldn't create any NEW ONES. Well... I can certainly see how that could have been misinterpreted. Al Gore's statement... not so much.*

*it's off-topic, but read the end comment.

And at the end of the day, it's not like the Christian Coalition went and voted Democrat, nor did Buchanan really represent a serious primary challenge: Bush trounced him by over three to one in the popular voter and won every single State. Buchanan represented no more than a symbolic (and possibly egotistic) challenge. So... I'm sorry. It's pure and utter bullshit to say that a lack of PARTY LOYALTY cost Bush the '92 election. He went back on a "Read my lips" pledge, and was in a recession, running against a charismatic candidate who constantly reminded people of it.

Dan Quayle didn't help matters much either.

OK, now... Fast forward again to Bill Clinton, 1998.

After six years of compiling a largely Republican record: NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, '96 Telecom Monopoly Bill, Repeal of Glass-Steagal, and a 38.6% top-tier tax rate (remember, from 1982 to 1986, under Reagan no less, it was 50%!); one could certainly make the case that Liberals were fed up with him and his "new Democrat" paradigm. Aside from Bryer and Ginsberg? I can't think of a single, bona fide Liberal thing the man did. Of course, that's not why I hated him then. I was a Conservative then, and still at a "William" level of Right Wing brainwashing, thanks in equal parts to Rush Limbaugh and growing up in the family I did and the times that I did. What can I say? As a CHILD? Reagan was my hero. (I sent him a get-well card when he got shot. He sent me back a letter. That was a pretty deal to a then seven-year old!) (Even though I know he didn't actually write it himself!) But... I'm grown up now, and so I know better. Now? I hate Clinton for the right (not the Right's) reasons.

So how does one explain how we all "rallied" around Clinton during the impeachment proceedings? Where were all his Liberal Critics then? Why didn't we join with Newt Gingrich, in the hunt for justice... Sorry... I can't even type that with a strait face. Rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton, and EVERYTHING to do with NEWT GINGRICH! I mean, come on... So the guy was bullshit President. That doesn't mean we're going to sit back while some Right-Wing, jack-booted, cocksucker like Newt Gingrich REMOVES A POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE over something as inconsequential as a blow-job from an intern! (And before any doofuses out there tell me it was about lying about it, let me ask you something: How do you feel about the fact that Gingrich him self was having an affair at the time? And did you feel the same about incoming speaker Bob Livingston? Who that mean old Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine "forced" to resign as incoming Speaker over HIS affair? It was a bullshit impeachment, and you know it, so don't waste our time!) What was on display in 1998 was not support for Bill Clinton so much as a backlash against Gingrich and his hyper-partisan, Republican-led witch hunt of Clinton. It wasn't a defense of the DEMOCRATS so much as it was a defense of DEMOCRACY. The Republicans couldn't win fairly in '96, so they were going to ruin him.

Funny how history repeats itself, huh? You'd think Barry would have known the types of people he was dealing before he took the job. Shame that.

So fast forward again (over eight years of a President who WAS NOT popularly elected, and who the press - that's ALL of the press - cheer-led for as he exploded the deficits, startled illegal, unnecessary and unfunded wars and happily chipped away at our civil liberties) to our "savior" (the Right's words, not ours) Barack Obama. So... HOW do I explain why so many Liberals (including your's truly, for longer than most) stuck with him for SO long? Thought a health care bill that resembled Gingrich's c.1993 before the Republicans even took first crack at it. Through a stimulus bill that was trimmed down to a size that would satisfy the very people who's leader stated as his 'top ptriority' making [Obama] a one-term President. Through replacing two reliable Liberal votes on the Supreme Court with two moderates - thus moving the Court farther to the Right. WHY have we stuck with him? Why are there so many still do?

Well, I see two things, really. In the early days, say... early 2009 though about mid 2010? I think there was a lot of... confusion. Obama suddenly didn't sound a whole lot like the guy we had all voted for. That's not normally surprising, most candidates don't live up their rhetoric, but Obama was elected on a large part BECAUSE of that rhetoric! And give HUGE majorities! In BOTH HOUSES! And, pretty much just like Clinton, he took that Liberal mandate and ran right to the Center with, quite possibly overshooting the mark. And... well.. I figure a lot of people didn't even notice at first. And once they did, couldn't figure out what to make of it. And Obama had MUCH larger majorities than Clinton had. (And also squandered.)

And then there was the Right. See... I also think that a lot of the image people had of Obama as this extremely Liberal guy came from the Right. I pretty much knew I was voting for a moderate because I recognized the Right's blathering as pure horseshit and listened to what Obama had to say. The quintessential example of this was when Obama said, [PP] "If we have actionable intelligence that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, I would consider military incursions into Pakistan in order to capture him." Within a day this very rational position became "Obama wants to OVERTHROW Musharraf!" (That was our "great ally" Musharraf, BTW, who's country Bin laden WAS actually hiding in the entire time!) And within a day of THAT, I'm getting emails from my Conservative friends saying how Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan! Seriously! And they BELIEVED this! And even after PROVED to them that this was an idiotically absurd interpretation of the man's words, they're response was STILL be best summed up by my friend, Mike, who said, "Yeah, OK, but still... Strange dude."

*face palm*
*shakes head*

Now... What role does all this play? Well... Consider the average American voter. They get inspired by his lofty rhetoric, and here the Right demonize him with every epithet they can muster. He comes into office, seems to capitulate to the Right on just about every key issue, and they... KEEP ON demonizing him with every epithet they can muster. So let's go back to that relatively mild-mannered voter, and now woefully misinformed voter. Sure... there are those on the Left who say he's going too far to the Right, but... If that were true why does the Right seem madder than ever at him?

Well... simple answer: They're bat shit fucking insane, that's why!

And that's really been the trend since at least the Clinton years: As the Republicans have pulled farther and farther to the Right, the Democrats have responded by moving to the right. And as the Democrats have compromised by moving to the Right, the Republicans have responded by moving EVEN FARTHER to the Right!

And at this point? Any real Liberal who's still supporting Obama as a Candidate or the Democrats as a Party are doing so for any of the following reasons: Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John Beohner, Mitch McConnel, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump... The list goes on, but I think the point is clear. It not so much as the lesser of two evils, so much as voting for the person or party who would compromise with the evil and voting for the actual evil. At this point the Republicans are so far gone, that NEWT GINGRICH, one of the least popular Speakers of the House in American History, is their LEADING CANDIDATE!
And no, I DO NOT hope he gets the nom, because as much as I believe he would getter utterly TROUNCED in the general, I remember 2000 and the Rehnquist Court appointing our next President, and I will not chance that.

I hope Romney gets the nom. He's the only who's not completely insane, completely moronic or both.
And I hope there is a Primary Challenger to Obama, even if it's just a symbolic one, like Pat Buchanan in '92. If there is? They already have my vote, right now, just to send Barry a message. But I'll still vote for Obama in '12 in the general and, if he loses, I will personally kick the ass of every Liberal who stayed home. Our next President will likely named Ginsburg's successor, and possibly (remote, but still...) Scalia's or Kennedy's. Do you really want that job to be done by Newt Gingrich?!
And THAT'S why I don;t think you can measure our "loyalty" in votes. Because the alternative REALLY IS that much worse.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that my take on the whole thing. And I'm keeping my stance that the Dem's remain the Big-Tent and the Pub's the group-thinkers.

-------------------------------------------

*OK... Al Gore. The Internet. Here's EXACTLY what he said, in his interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Couple of things...

First of all, Blitzer didn't challenge him on the point. At all. He didn't seem to think this claim was all that remarkable at the time. Liberal Bias? Hardly. More like: IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE. How did Gore do this? Well, for a start, there was the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, commonly known as the "Gore Bill." This laid the legislative groundwork for the the National Information Infrastructure, which serves as the foundation of what we now know as the Internet.

Was his statement even misleading or an exaggeration? Well, I think Snopes gives the best take on that question:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid 1960's that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway system, we would not have seen dozens of editorial lampooning him for claiming that he "invented" the concept of highways, or implying the he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept that Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

If you believe he said it, or doubt the veracity of what was actually said, then you simply do not have a basic understanding of the facts. Because all of the guys that YOU THINK "invented" the Internet? Like pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn? Note that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."

And making Al Gore's ACCURATE CLAIM into a joke? Makes you sound about as stupid as drawing a picture of Ike with a hard-hat and a shovel - and meaning it as mockery - would do. If you're reading this? You and I both owe a lot of that that to AL GORE. To believe anything else is to swallow the lies that Fox news, and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter told you because they KNEW that Bush would be trounced if the public ever came to grips with just how much Gore had accomplished - the FUCKING INTERNET for fuck's sake!!! - versus how little Bush had. (Trading Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Marique?! What an idiot!!!) So clearly a different narrative had to be told. They're paid propagandists, who preach to the greedy and the gullible. Nothing more.

The Democrats could learn from this...

At some point in the 1984 campaign, Ronald W. Reagan was quoted as saying that he'd like to arm-wrestle Walter Mondale.  IOW: He called out Mondale's manhood.

Mondale replied that "The American people would rather hear about arms control, than arm wrestling."

Good one, poindexter!

See... Most Democrats just can't talk trash!

Look at the 2004 campaign, with the Swift-Boat veterans spreading all kinds of slander and insult, and John Kerry did not once call them out on it! As close as that election was (the closest RE-election of all time!) if instead he had come out swinging? I truly believe  he would have won. But they just don't get it! I believe it was that same year that Saxby Silver-Spoon  Chambliss was talking the same smack about Max "I left three of my limbs in Vietnam" Cleland.  But did Cleland get up and kick ass? (OK: remain seated and kick ass?) No more than Kerry did.  And this was a guy who could have kicked the shit out of Saxby Fairyboy Chambliss from his fucking wheelchair!

And go figure that both men lost. 

Because in America? We'd rather have someone who [looks] strong and is stupid than someone who appears weak, but is smart.  I can't imagine what else might be behind the popularity of Governor Robert E. Perry and Congresswoman Loony Bin Bachman (who look to be next year's answer to 2008's McCain / Palin.)

But seriously... The Democrats just don't know how to talk smack!  Obama especially!

"Yes, we can!" he said...

...and "Yes! Weak hand!" they realized!

So it is with that in mind that the following Cracked Article is recommended as required reading for all Democrats:


The 10 Greatest Uses of Trash Talk in the History of War


My personal favorite?

In the Third Sacred War, when Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great) sent the following warning to Sparta:

"You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army on your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people and raze your city."

The Spartan's official reply was:

 "If."

Now THAT'S bad-ass!

Who can blame Philip and Alexander for spending the rest of their lives fighting wars as far away from Sparta as possible?!

Reagan Jokes (not what you think...)

He may have been the most over-rated President of All-Time, but I have to admit: The man could certainly deliver a joke. And boy did he during his eight years in office...



In the immortal words of Daniel Lawrence Whitney, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"

Speaking of which, here's another classic...



I'm not going to keep posting my own jokes here (unless anyone thinks that's a good idea? Whatever. I don't.) This is also going to the last time I re-post a joke I've already told. So if you want to hear some good ones (mostly of a non-political nature) please subscribe to my YouTube channel.

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility?

I've done several pieces over the past year+ showing how absurd it is to consider the REPUBLICANS "fiscally responsible."  Whether it's showing what portion of our debt they're responsible for, or going year by year and showing the trends in deficit spending or even just recognizing the fact that they have been, in fact, actively trying to bankrupt the government in order to force an end to programs that they know they could never get away with, politically, cutting or eliminating.  And that last bit, while seemingly a bit paranoid, is on full display right now in the ongoing farce about trimming the deficit. And to understand just how big a farce this is, realize that you could take ALL of Obama's proposed cuts, ALL of the Republican's proposed cuts, and none of the Republican's propsed tax cuts (yeah - they're "serious" about the deficit, and yet they're STILL proposing tax cuts! That's liek getting "serious" about your credit card debt by working fewer hours!) and even wth all of that, you wouldn't even be HALFWAY to a balanced budget!
And what do we already see will be the result of all these cuts? Hospitals closing, schools closing, tens of thousands out of their jobs, no funduing for public broadcasting (the Right has to LOVE that one!) and the list goes on, and on, and on.

And on.

And for all that pain?  We're not even HALFWAY to a balanced budget?  You gotta be fucking kidding me!

And do you know what's not on the table? RAISING TAXES. Of course.  And there cannot be one person anywhere in the world with two brain cells to bounce together who thinks you can balance the budget on spending cuts alone.  But... this was the Republican's plan all along!  And Speaker Boehner can cry "We're broke!" all he wants, that doesn't make it true.  We're not broke.  That's a bald-faced lie.  We're in the RED, yes.  And that's not good, long-term.  (Although that being the case one has to wonder why the Republicans PUT US in the red every single one of the last 20 years in a row when they held the White House!)  But see... they don't want to raise taxes for two reasons and two reasons only, and neither of them has ANYTHING to do with harming the economy, or creating jobs - botho fwhich are pretty much bullshit.  In fact the same economic model that gives their tax-cut multipliers? (That would be KEYNES.)  Demonstrates that spending changes have a larger effect! (IOW: Those spending cuts will do more harm to the economy than the same level of tax increase. So says the model that gives them the tax-cut multiplier!) And I'm not going to debate that here, but it's a bullshit, nonsense point anyway.  If you want the details, email me or take a goddamned economics course.

The two reasons they don't want to raise taxes is:

1) The American public has grown so stupid and so greedy and so so shortsighted and lacks so much perspective that we're probably to the point where the fools WOULD actually lose their jobs if they did it.  Not that I care about the Republicans losing their jobs, but the bulk of America has grown so spoiled that they just have no clue. No clue at all.  I'll get to what I'd do with taxes in a moment, but the Right has dumbed down America so much, that it probably IS the political reality that raisign taxes is political suicide.  Even though it's needed.  Kind of like... REAL LEADERHSIP.

2) (And this is the important one) Raising taxes would LITERALLY FIX EVERYTHING.  Seriously.  And... they don't want that!  They've been trying to kill these progams for DECADES and they have finally CREATED an environment where they can claim that we have to! (In some cases, IN ORDER TO SAVE THEM!  Figure THAT ONE out!)  But finally, after 30+ years of crippling our governments finances, they finally have enough people fooled into believing that these things have to go. (Persoanlly, I'd say these idiotic Republicans are the ones that have to go, but the people have spoken.) The LAST thing they want at this point is a solvent federal government!

Think about it: How many times have your heard one of these fools, Democrat or Republican, claim, "We just can't afford it anymore?"  I hear it almost every day.  And while they're right, from a certain point of view, it's utterly shocking why no one ever asked about raising taxes back to the levels they were at when the country and its finances were doing just fine!  It's not like we've had these tax rates etched in stone since time immemoriam!  GEORGE W. BUSH created the current tax table, less than a decade ago! And, at least for the past two years, Obama's lowered taxes EVEN MORE!  It's hardly like were tapped here, folks!  It's like we're dying of thirst sitting in our kitchen, and yet refuse to turn on the tap!  It's psychotic!  And if they wanted to lower taxes repsonsibly, all these many long years, they'd have cut the spending FIRST thus keeping the taxes6 cuts deficit neutral.  But since the American people would never go for that, they had to plunge us into debt, creating this artificial crisis in order to confuse the public and get them on board! (And despite being 30 years in the making, with 20 of those years under Reagan, Bush and Bush, somehow this is all OBAMA'S fault!)

Now, I would like to take a look at some of the tax tables of recent past administrations, just to show you how "painful" (hah!) this would be.  As two examples, I'm going to use a household that makes $500,000 per year and my own (approximate) household income.  I'm not going to STATE my income, but I will be honest about what it would cost or save me if we were taxed at some of these older rates.  If you can calculate my income from that information? Congratulations. You pass basic Algebra.  And I'm also assuming that I don't have to explain to any of you how a MARGINAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION works.  So if you don't know where I'm getting my figures, try wikipedia.  One last thing, you can check my tax bracket info aginst the info available at the U.S. Tax Foundation, and my inflation calculatuions HERE.  One last thing: It's worth noting that, starting in 1984, the tax brackets were adjusted each year for inflation automatically.  I happen think this is a good thing, and would automatically adjust ALL fixed numbers in the tax code - including all maximums and minimums - the same way.  So for simplicity's sake, I'm using the last year that the given rates were in effect.

The current tax table is a legacy of the Bush'43 administration:
(Sorry, these run over.  If they were any smaller, you wouldn't be able to read them!)

This is the tax table that resulted in eight years of record deficits (record at elast when compared to any that came before him) under Bush, and another under Obama, and likely another one next year.  Now you hear a lot about eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm on record many times as saying that we should eliminate them accross the board!  Clinton had two budget surplues at the end of his term.  And this was the tax table that created those:

If we adjust for inflation, and move the brackets into 2011 dollars, we get:

So what would all this bed-wetting about the Bush tax cuts cost the rich? Well, that family who's pulling in $500,000 would onlyhave to kick in an extra $12,33.64 a year.  That sounds like a lot, to be sure, but think about it: $500,000 a year!  Think about what you make, what you live on, and ask yourself how hard it would be to find an extra grand or so per month in your budget if you made that many times more than you make now!  You know what I say? Boo-fucking-hoo for the rich.  What would this cost ME?  An extra $1755 a year.  Now that would affect my lifestyle and spendign decisions far more that the $12-large would affect that other familiy's, but I'll be honest with you: $147 less a month?  I could afford it.  Actually? It wouldn't change by budget at all, nor would it impact my retirement savings. I'd still even have some decent cash going into my short-termsavings account. So it really wouldn't change much of anything.  (I guess it must just be good to be me!)  But whatever.  If that's all it cost to REALLY eliminate the defict and KEEP most of our social safety nets? FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!

Now, I will admit that Boehner & Co. may have a point when it comes to tax hikes.  After all, check out the table that got George "Read My Lips" Bush voted out of office in 1992:

adjusted for inflation:

Oh, my fucking god!  His top-rate is still less than his son's!  And he got kicked out of office for that!  Apparently we've been spoiled little cry-babies about taxes longer than I thought, the Clinton years not withstanding!

Now this will illustrate why the whole flat tax thing (and the arguments about top-tier rates) are utter bullshit.  This tax table? Would cost me another $1089 over the Clinton table. (and $2845 over the current table.) That's right: Bill Clinton LOWERED my taxes! (Hint: It was those extra brackets!)  Meanwhile, in all his generosity, Bush'41would give a $13,583 CUT to that family making $500K per year as compared to the Clinton table. (And $1250 less than than what his son's table taxes them at!) Talk about "rob from the poor and give to the rich!"

But how bad was that, anyway?  Why'd he get voted out over that? Well... it was replacing this absurd tax table from Reagan's second term:

Look at that!  A top-tier rate that's actually LESS than what he's taxing the middle class at! Can you believe it!  This is the Right's great hero, folks: Rob from the poor and give to the rich, and don't even try to hide it! Adjusted for inflation, it would look like this:

OK. Under this monstrosity, I'd be paying $3004 more than I'm paying now.  (And $1249 more than the Clinton table!)  Wait... I though Reagan was this great tax-cutter?!  Well... he was, if you were rich enough to afford him:  That family of $500K? Pays $4,872 less than they do now, and $17,205 less that they would owe under Clinton!  The middle class gets soaked for 3-large, so that some making $500K can have an extra 17-GRAND?!  What. the. fuck?  I'm liking Geroge W. Buch better all the time!  At least with him there was SOMETHING in it for me!  As far as I'm concerned Reagan and Bush were a bunch of working-class-people-hating cock-munchers!

There is one thing, however, about Reagan that his current cult-following will not tell you about.  In his first term, he actually signed a top tier tax rate of 50% into law.  It was a CUT at the time but still, let me say that again: Ronald Reagn signed a 50% tax rate into law!  And it was in place until 1986.  Here's what it looked like:

Adjust for inflation and you get...

Looks complicated, no?  Well... complicated can be GOOD sometimes.  Under this table I would owe $2566 more than I owe today, and just $810 more than I would under Clinton.  And those rich folks at $500K?  Would owe $64,798 more than the do now. Wow. And that's under a RONALD WILSON REAGAN CONSTRUCTED Tax Table!  Fuck Clinton! For an extra $810 a year?  I say: let's bring back the first REAGAN tax table!  Let's bring back that $64K tax hike that this great socialist would ask of the rich!

I mentioned that this was actually a reduction, and I've gone so far recently as to call for pre-REAGAN tax rates.  This was the last table under Carter:

Adjusted for inflation:

Do you notice how that top tier rate doesn't even kick in until well after $500K? Remember that the next time someone's making fun of that 70% tax rate.  Now... I'll admit that I could be pursuaded that 70% is too high.  We can argue it.  I'd be perfectly happy with a top tier rate of 50% - with that 1982-86 Reagan Table.

But just for shits and giggles, under Carter, I'd owe $4355 more than I'd owe today.  ($2600 more than with the Clinton table, and $1789 more than with the earlier Reagan table.) That's... a bit much, actually.  I could still swing it, without changing my budget, or my retirement investments, but... there wouldn't be ANYTHIGN left for short-term savings or emergencies. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.  So... yeah, bvioulsy that would eventually impact my budget.  And thus I might just have to back off from my calls of Carter-levels of taxation, even if it would squeeze an extra $117,708 out of those rich bastards down the street, over what they'd owe now. (LOL!) As much as I'd love to seem them pay that... We're getting into T.E.A. territory for me with with what I'd owe.  So, yeah, I'll admit this is excessive.

I'll bet you never thought you'd here me say this: BRING BACK THE REAGAN TAX TABLES!

(Just remember: I mean the 1982-1986 tables, not the 1987-1989 tables!)

What do my libral readers think?  Time to revisit Reagan's great tax policy?

S'more Rambling...

Just some random rambling, because I feel to compelled to write something tonight, but as too sick, achy and tired to be profound.  So I want to share something with you that will make you laugh your asses off.  BUT... I want to share the emotional roller coaster that got me there as well. (Of course, you may also feel free to skip down to the link if you don't care! I won't mind!) ;)

Earlier tonight I was giving my two boys a bath.  And when I do that, i sing to them.  I sing both loudly, and fairly badly.  But they don't really care, the bathroom tile does wonders with acoustics and since it is the first fifteen minutes since they got home from school that my wife doesn't have to deal with them, she's usually keen to keep her otherwise witty comments to herself during this time.

So I'm drying them off, and singing Paul Simon's 'American Tune' (yeah, we sing GOOD SONGS here, not this 'wheel's on the bus' shit!) and he's gently rocking to the music, and I just feel... good.  But the song is pretty moving, and it's not entirely a feel-good tune. (It's not depressing, juts... solemn.) So, after we were finished, I tried looking on you-tube for a karaoke  version (no vocals), that I could sing to while my wife was out. (Being a firm believer in the eighth amendment, after all!)  And I found one, but... a very different version than the one I knew (from the "Concert in Central Park" Live Album?)  So I couldn't really sing to it.  (Even beyond the fact that I can't really sing!)

So I started surfing YouTube, watching Paul Simon videos, when I saw one with Paul and John Lennon, appearing in some really chessy 1970's talk show together.  No music, really awful jokes.  But from there I started watching some John Lennon videos, and eventually came to the one's related to John death.  Now... I was 7 years old when John Lennon died, and my parents were not Beatles fans. I have no first hand memories of John Lennon from when he was alive, and was not really aware of the man or the story at the time.  (The first artist's death that I was aware of was Harry Chapin's, two years later.  I didn't cry then; but I almost do now, thinking of it.)  And something just struck me... Between Paul McCartney trying to play it cool to the British press later that evening, yet obviously too stunned to pull it off (probably the first time in his life that's happened) to the news casters, half of whom treated it like the weather report. (And fine, I do truly long for the days when the news was presented without all the sensationalist grandstanding, but considering what John Lennon meant to the world, reading the release with the emotional involvement that you give a sports score from a game that doesn't matter in a sport that you don't even follow hardly seems appropriate.) And finally there was the reaction of then President-Elect Reagan, who it seemed to me could barely contain his apathy. Granted it was the Reporter who brought up gun control, but Reagan positively BOOKED it from the interview at that point.  He actually answered the question with a talking point as he walked quickly away. The "great communicator." The president elect.  Upon being informed of the grisly murder of music's greatest living icon.  (Even if his was a damned, dirty, pinko, commie, hippy -  A fact that no doubt drove Reagan crazy!)  Anyway, I don't know why but after watching so many utterly lifeless news reports about this terrible event, possibly the first "JFK" moment of my lifetime, albeit one I don't remember, I started feeling depressed. 

Really depressed.  (And to be honest, it hasn't taken much lately.)

So I decided I needed to laugh. A lot.  I needed a good dose of the only alternative medicine that's worth a damn.  And my dose was expertly doled out by Seanbaby, the two-time Silver Star winning contributer to Cracked.com.

Here you go:
The four most irresponsible sex advice books of all time

(The funniest part might be that they're all written by the same guy!  I guess... Seanbaby wants his money back? IDK.) (Sorry, Seanbaby: You know I love you, man! PLEASE don't give me the "Godek" treatment if you happen to read this!)

It's 99% genius, and here's a piece of gold worth remembering:

#132: There's always nude dusting, nude room painting, nude dish washing... (You get the idea)

To which Seanbaby replies:

Yeah, I get the idea that after you clean something, there's more pubic hair on it than when you started.

There's more, but I almost fell out my chair when reading that.  So you'll have to check out the rest for yourselves.  If you ever need a really good laugh (and you know who you are!) there are few writers out there better than Seanbaby to give you an overdose.

Cheers!

-----------------------------------------------------------

BTW... I only plan to do two more posts this year, since we'll be busy with the holidays, and travelling to boot. (No, not to "Boot," to BOSTON.  I meant "as well!") The next one will be the December Gold Star Winners, and the last is just a year's-end / holiday sign off.  Starting next year, I'll be trying to go back to something resembling my former writing schedule, but I don't see another month like October anytime soon.  Plus I'm finally taking an actual drawing class, (which I've never actually done before!) so I should be getting my next comic strip off the ground a couple of weeks in.  I'll probably create a tab at the top of the blog, where I can stash anything related to the project, and have a place to link to any of the older posts that I've put up about it.  Anyway, until then, take care, get your shopping done (the economy needs it!) and enjoy your holidays!

My Reply to okiepoli

Background: This conversation started as some back-and-forth between myself an commenter okiepoli just under two months ago, in the Cooler Heads Prevail post.  In my defense I didn't realize that he had sent me an mail, due to my habit of simply deleting any emails that look like they're notifying me of blog comments, opting instead to read them on the actual blog.  And this one was interesting to me, because okie falls into an odd, but growing Category of voter, especially as that Tea Party insanity claims any remnant of the Right not already claimed by the funny-mentalists: A self-identified Conservative Republican who basically sees nothing of value in the Republican Party.  Now, to be sure, that's certain my kind of "Conservative Republican." LOL. I'm both kidding and not kidding when I say we need more like him.  (What I mean is, but the cynical and the principled interpretation of that statement hold true! LOL)  And I may be simplifying things a bit, off course.  I only know him from his posts here and on MMFA, and for the longest time had him pegged as a LIBERAL, due to nothing else that his penchant from joining in on most of the rounds of Republican bashing.  So, following up for that earlier post, he sent me the email below to continue the conversation that blogger apparently would let his post in the comments section. (I'll have to see if there is something I can do about the character limitation.  because it really is too short.)

Just as with my response to Steeve's email, I'm going to put the excerpts from okie's  in yellow.

Eddie;


Sorry it took so long to get back to this - you may have noticed a decreased presence on MMfA also. I've been "live(ing) in interesting times" lately, mostly due to the end of the fiscal year at work. (DOD civilian) And you have 8 new posts I need to catch up with since.

A two-parter, huh? OK, I'll play along:

PART the FIRST – RE: your first reply:


You say, "Unfortunately that school of thought was largely abandoned back in 1980, and all that remains of it now is a distant memory, clung to by the few principled (true) Conservatives left."

Why do you hate Pres. Reagan? (j/k) I would pin the start of the downhill slide to the early '70's – Pres. Nixon was as progressive a Republican as you could hope to find. I think he was confused by the concept of a relatively weak presidency - Constitutionally a mere figurehead – the weakest of the three branches. (See: The Federalist Papers: #67 - 77, specifically #69, 70 &77, arguments can be found in The Antifederalist Papers: #67 – 77.) Combine a pro-unitary executive view with the idea that 'peaceniks,' 'leftists,' and Democrats (my words, not his) were an enemy to be beaten at any cost to prevent the country from sliding towards communism, were, in my view, his downfall.

Pres. Ford wasn't bad, but he wasn't perceived as being 'good' and certainly didn't come across as being as strong as Pres. Nixon. Nixon's pardon combined with the state of the nation at the end of Ford's term, voter dissatisfaction with any Republican rule – weak or strong – and the promise of government reform gave us Pres. Carter. (You can defend Carter if you want to, but you don't need to on my account.)

This may come as a surprise, not only coming from a self-identified Liberal, and one who's written a piece on how badly Nixon really sucked, but really?  I don't think Nixon was all that bad a President, as long as we're only talking policy.  You can criticise the war tactics, although you can defend them as well, but in the end, he DID end the damned war.  He created several important Government regulatory agencies, and normalized relations with China.  (Which again, one can argue either way, but I'd take the problems we have now over what would have been 40 years with a second major player in the Cold War and the arms race. 

The way I see it, much like with Carter, the biggest problem with Nixon was Nixon himself.  His personal issues far outweighed any policy issues he may have had.  I mean, come on... spying on the Democrats in 1972?!  He won 520-17 for cripes sake!  And I don't think ANY of that came from any secret information he might have gleaned from those shenanigans.  His personal demons got in the way of his better judgment.  But Watergate was paranoia, not policy.  And without Watergate?  No one today would even know who Gerald Ford was.

Nixon would be a RINO today.  He may have been perceived as pretty hard-Right in  his day, but remember that he was coming in after Lyndon Johnson, maybe the last public servant who was still supporting the "New Deal" philosophy of Roosevelt.  IMHO? He also had his policy flaws (Vietnam?) but he was the last truly liberal President, and maybe the last truly principled, leader we've had in the White House.

I feel it's important to point out that Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford all had distinguished military service in foreign theatres, as did Sen. Goldwater. This distinction is lacking when we turn our attention to:

Pres. Reagan


Reagan never had to be a hero (but he played one on TV!), or even come close to an enemy – his 'service' was all done state-side. I'm not sure if that is the difference – merely memorizing the lines and mouthing the words – vs actually having to live the life... Anyway, you and others have repeatedly pointed out Reagan's faults, to which I would only add. Reagan probably could be classified as the 'event horizon' of 'principled Conservatism.'

Wait... who "hates Reagan" now? ;)

Speaking of Reagan, who popularized the term 'welfare queen,' now might be a good time for an aside on my thoughts on the welfare state:


I don't consider myself a heartless bastard so I care, at least a little, about my fellow inhabitants on this speck of mud we call home. I subscribe to the oft mis-attributed phrase "Charity begins at home..." - unfortunately, it seems to end there as well for the modern crop of Republicans. I would challenge them to prove that they are not heartless bastards by "promote(ing) the general Welfare" - not necessarily by taxing and funding social programs, perhaps by getting personally involved? Many folks would defend their charity by saying "I donate..." clothing (they no longer wear,) household items, canned goods, yada, yada, yada – I do that too. Here's the difference – it takes money and people for the kind non-profits to operate – those canned goods that you wouldn't eat unless you were starving, those clothes that you cleaned out of your closet to make room for newer, more fashionable (or better-fitting, whatever) clothing – they're NOT going to collect, warehouse, sort, repackage and distribute themselves. It takes trucks, fuel, space and PEOPLE!

OK, first of all?  No one thinks of themselves as a "heartless bastard."  I'm sure even Rush Limbaugh thinks of himself as a generous and magnanimous guy fighting for what he honestly believes is right.  I'm not suggesting the you are one, not at all, only that this statement doesn't really mean anything. ;)

Second of all, while I applaud anyone's participation in charity, and feel that there is a lot of good work being done in that area... Do you really think it would ever be enough?  If we got rid of the welfare state, do you really think a few dollars here and there, some threadbare clothing, and as many cans of creamed corn will really make up the difference?  What's more, I propose that if the taxes were lower proportionately, once those programs were cut, that charitable donations might actually DROP as the marginal return, in terms of the tax deduction, drops. 

What more, while I don't adopt the label "Keynesian," I do understand how Keynesian economics WORKS.  All that welfare money?  Goes right into the economy.  Every after-tax penny of it immediately becomes someone else's income.  People who WORK.  And people who would also be OUT OF WORK in that big chuck of revenue was suddenly denied them or their employer. (Which in turn would that much less consumption by those people, and less revenue for than many more businesses.)  Whether or not huge deficits can change the course of an economy is up for debate.  What is FACT is that Taxing and Spending - in unison, now, as a balanced budget - increase incomes for everyone.  And cutting taxes and spending - in unison - will hurt just about everyone.  Those rich folks at the top? They're going to be rich either way.  They get every penny they pay in taxes BACK through all the increased consumption resulting from the increased spending.  And the farther down the ladder the spending starts, the more people's income it will become before finally being whittled way by taxes and acts of non-consumption (savings.)  Tax-cuts for the rich?  Pretty much ALL end up as acts of non-consumption.  They'll save it.  So it benefits no one but them.  But a welfare case?  Spends every penny, and thus gives the highest economic benefit to the economy.  THAT'S the fundamental difference between supply-siders and Keynesian: Recognition that the health of the economy depends far more on CONSUMPTION that it does PRODUCTION.  (That, and a recognition of the fact that right now?  Stuff is pretty cheap.  WAGES and INCOME are what's keeping consumption down, not high prices.
I volunteer two hours every two weeks at a kitchen. (I'd do more, it's extremely rewarding in it's own 'warm-fuzzy' way, but I _really_ can't find the time in my schedule.) I manage to work in about 24 'unscheduled' hours a year for projects for Goodwill, SA and some local groups. I'm doing more than some (I suspect many,) and less than others (I suspect too few.)

I applaud you.  I'm ashamed to say that I've done no more than donate, myself.  And while I can make any excuse I want, I'll be honest: Even without the hectic family life, I probably still wouldn't donate much time.  So you could argue that I'm as much a part of the problem, from the Left.  But hey, I'll do my part: I pay my taxes, and I'm not out campaigning to get rid of the social safety nets.  In fact, I would see them strengthened. That may seem like the weaker choice from a Conservative's perspective, but I simply believe that more can be accomplished for the rich, middle class and poor alike by using the resources of the Federal Government instead of society loose change.  And remember: Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Carter?  All of those administrations were basically deficit neutral, at least as compared to everyone since Reagan.  So it's not the "Great Society" program that are killing us.  It our unwillingness to PAY for this great nation, thanks in large part to Ronald "Event Horizon" Reagan and the culture of deficit spending that he kicked off.

I challenge any 'Republican' (or anyone else, for that matter,) who decries the cost of social programs and the tax burden they cause to step-up and either whip out their checkbook or invest their time – otherwise they should admit that they're heartless bastards or, STFU, pay their taxes, and attempt to salve their consciences with the previously mentioned "I donate..." defense. (sorry for the rant – one of my pet peeves.)

Hey, I hear you.   And I feel a little bit better now about saying "I donate," because I'm NOT one of the one's complaining about high taxes.
 
Back to your post: "For me, the label (and the party) is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure we both just think what we think and believe as we do. You're mat be more comfortable with the one label, or party. Me? I couldn;t care less what soemone wants to call it."


In "The Federalist Papers" #10, Madison rails against 'Factions' (political parties,) as does Washington in his Farewell Address – Who am I to pit myself against these and other great thinkers on that subject? Unfortunately, a 'mob mentality' trumps logic. Many people can't be bothered to think independently and have forgotten the wisdom of their elders (or betters, as the case may be.) I would say that modern life has become too fast-paced to allow for considered thought and reasonable debate – but I take our conversation to be evidence that this is not the case. Hell, even during the Founders time, dirt-farmers who worked from sun-up to sun-down managed to find the time to weigh-in on political issues. (I guess they weren't too busy watching TV.)

The evolution of Political Parties was inevitable.  It's human nature and really the nature of a Democracy.  Even in parliamentary systems, they still end up forming coalitions, so you effectively still end up with two sides: The Government and the Opposition.  Those are a bit more diverse groups than what we have, but until recently there were Liberal Republicans, and there remains rather a few Conservative Democrats.  But multiple parties just means split votes, and everything only gets messier.  Like in Great Britain recently, where the Liberal Democrats, who are to the Left of Labor, joined with the Conservative to put them over the top.  And it's a mess.  The Liberals lost on all points - hence the austerity policies that are being enacted, and which I mentioned a few posts ago.  So while Parties suck, there's really no way around them.  Washington and Madison were absolutely right, but they were asking way too much of humanity.

I wouldn't mind if we had at least 5 or 6 viable parties that addressed a variety of issues, values and views. I feel the choices would stimulate thought and debate, and would be preferable to the two-party monopoly that we currently see.

Wouldn't matter. Wouldn't make a bit of difference. (See above, LOL)  And more and more I'm coming to the impression that we really DON'T have two Parties.  The Democrats have shown themselves to be little more than "Republican-lite."  And the funny thing? The Tea-Baggers say the same thing about the Republicans!"  And I can certainly perceive a POV form which BOTH of these statements are true!  And that might be why Congress is so partisan: It's no longer about the policy.  The policies aren't that far apart.  So it's all about which team wins.  Now if the TeaBagger's take over the right? And we have ourselves a little Coffee Party on the Left?  And we compete for the moderates?  (Thus moderating both sides in the process?) THEN we'll have true two-party system.
"What the right practices these days may not be "Conservative" but that's what it's called and I utterly reject it. And if they're going to throw the "Liberal" label at me, then screw 'em. I'LL WEAR IT WITH PRIDE."

So you're OK with letting dishonest people pervert the meaning of words? I know you're not, and neither is Classic! There should be no shame in those labels. We are victims of a campaign to distort the language and those subversives who are conducting that campaign should be called-out and beaten over the head with a dictionary. (Pocket-version or collegiate with large type – depending on the severity of the crime.)

It's not that I'm "OK" with the meaning of words being perverted.  But I'm still a pragmatist.  You say "Conservative" but I hear very little from you that I can't, very fairly, call "Liberal."  So you choose to use a definition that most people, for whatever reason, no longer really consider valid.  Tragic yes, buts that;'s the reality of it.  If I really wanted to choose a label for myself?  Anti-Neo-Conservative might fit better than any.  But is there really any difference between that and "Liberal"? Not really. And hey, "Anti-Neo-Conservative" might be another way of saying "Classic Conservative" or even "Libertarian."  The only thing that puts me on the side of "Liberal" is my recognition that the policies of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson work.   

And the political Landscape shifted far more in the past 30 years than I have.  I've matured: After all I was only 8 years old when Reagan was elected.  So while I could idolize him as a kid, I had little understanding of policy.  Now that I do, I find that it's not so much that my core beliefs have changed, only that I didn't realize, as a child, how much Reagan differed form them.  And I don't think ANYONE at the time realized the full extent of the long-lasting damage his polices would do. 

In 1979, I may have been just Left of center.  But I find myself practically on the hard Left now, because the republic's perception of the Center has been puled so far to the Right!  And really I don't care about the Label, or the Party.  They're just tools I can use to describe what I believe in, in a simple way that can give a complete stranger some idea what those beliefs are.  It's not a perfect picture, but I dare say that when I say "Liberal" people get a more accurate picture of me than the do of YOU when you say "Conservative."

You can argue who's right and who's wrong. (Answer: You're right; they're wrong.)  I'm just being practical. I can't change the world if no one knows what the hell I'm talking about! LOL

"And it shows."

Agreed!

"So... COME TO THE DARK SIDE!!! (we have cake)"

But I'm watching my weight! ;)


"Thanks for your comment, and for that lucid, principled, well written post on MMFA. Can I use it?"

Fine Print: Copyright restrictions, yada, yada, yada. In whole or in part, etc. Not valid in any other state (of mind.) /Fine Print Thanks for the compliment, you're welcome to quote me. (Especially now that you threw my half-baked idea for solar-powered nuke waste-disposal out there for the world to see. Who knew being outed could be so liberating! Freed from the secret shame. Joy!)

I give up.  I'm not even sure at this point WHAT "shows." LOL.  But I'm glad we agree. LOL

PART the SECOND – RE: Oh, hey Okie, one thing

Ed note: "Okie" refers to someone from Oklahoma – capitalization and use correct in that sense. okiepoli is the screen-name of one opinionated blow-hard from Oklahoma – not capitalized by choice – suitable short-form "okie"

Duely noted. ;)

You said: ""Larger" Government (whatever THAT means) might be harder to "keep track" of, but "smaller" government, by contrast, give any/all of the individals in it more power individually. Personally, I'd like to try it the opposite way... Check out www.thirty-thousand.org.

I followed that link from your blog 22 July, 2010, and collected 7.73 Megs of information from the site and related links – I admit I am intrigued, but haven't had the time to digest and analyze it yet. My argument on size of government is more to do with scope rather than numbers of people or dollars. That said, I still believe that 'smaller' (limited scope,) more efficient (most-bang-for-buck) government is better than 'larger' (broad scope,) inefficient (expanding bureaucracy) government. (My definition of bureaucrat: a non-elected public 'servant' whose decrees (regulations, codes, etc.) carry the weight of law (I can be fined, jailed or otherwise punished for non-compliance.))

I offer this personal observation to clarify my position:


Recently, the OKC "Jesus House" non-profit made the news due to some scandalous activity. My conversations with other volunteers leads me to believe the allegations are true, and I will no longer donate money to that organization until the problems are corrected. It saddens me because Jesus House is such a valuable resource for the homeless in my city, and I know that many others are withholding donations and it has more of a negative effect on the quality and quantity of services offered than it does to the (mis-)management. Still, I made the choice – not some bureaucrat in a bureaucracy that is slow to recognize and correct it's mistakes. I agree – poverty, homelessness, hunger, etc. in the wealthiest nation in the world, is shameful. I also believe, with all my heart, that a government cannot adequately address, much less cure, these social ills.

I'm also dismayed by the Republican support of 'faith-based' organizations – tax-exempt for 501c's I'm OK with, but any kind of grant with that provision seems to cross the line I draw for separation. Where would we stop? If we give a penny to the next "Heaven's Gate" cult, we'd need to give three cents to the next Branch Davidians, more to the next Jim Jones, etc. until we get to the more main-stream folks. (Based on the percent of population represented by these faiths.) To apportion the money otherwise would smack of favoritism.

Again, government (federal) should concern itself with government affairs, LIKE PRESENTING A BUDGET FOR THE PRESIDENT TO SIGN BY APRIL, instead of shirking it's (Congress) Constitutional duty and running the country on continuing resolutions. State and local governments should concern themselves with their respective concerns. Society, through the efforts of it's members and Non-governmental Organizations (NGO's) should address social problems. There are levels of scope involved for each – local, regional, national, global – and levels of commitment. Political and social involvement is a citizens duty.


okiepoli

Wow.  That's mouthful and then some! LOL.  I really don't DISAGREE with anything you've said here.  My only "counter," if that's even the right word for it, is this:
 
1) As I stated previously, there are far more resources available at the federal level to combat poverty that would otherwise be available at the charitable level.  We need BOTH, and of course I'm fine with people dong charitable work.  I just don't understand the mentality that the two must be in competition with each other, instead of part of the same solution.  (Which is how I see them.)
 
And we DO have a repsonsibilty ot combat that poverty if for no other reason than we don't actually aim for full employemnt!  As a coutnry, we actually have a targeted unemployment rate!  So if we're going to keep ANYONE out of work as a matter of policy, I'd say we have some responsibility to them.
 
2) Regarding "punishing wrongdoing."  I'm going to offer something I learned, from a very conservative professor I might add, when I got my MBA.  In any given organization, redundantcny combats fraud.  It does this by requiring more people to be involved in any given conspiracy. And the more people involved, the more likely that one squeals or that it is otherwise discovered. 
 
You can see a very simple example of this at the movie theatre: Why do you pay one person and then give your ticket to someone else?  Why don;t you just PAY and then GO IN?  Because by separating the two processes, you have an accurate count of ticket purchases from one person, that makes it harder for the cashier to steal from the register without being caught.  And even if they tried to coordinate their efforts, all it would take is to be off by one or two ticket purchases here and there for management to know something's screwy is going on.
 
In contrast, a friend of mine has her own business.  She's very good at the service she provide, but she's not much at the business side of things.  She had just two people running the office, doing the billing and tracking the books.  And these two? Milked her to the tune of $700,000 over several years.  How? No redundantcny.  No one checking theirr work.  No checks and balances against which their numbers would ever be compared.  By the time she finally caught on? Her business was on the brink of bankruptcy.
 
People get frustrated with bureaucracies, and that's understandable.  But at least in those cases their is a PROCESS.  If I'm dealing with one person who has all the power? That can be a mixed blessing, big time.  If s/he wants to help me it's great.  But if their job is as a gatekeeper?   And they DON'T want to help me?  I'm twice as screwed as I am dealing with the bureaucracy.  Bureaucracies are SLOW.  But a single point of decision making? Is FINAL.  And of course, it becomes very easy for that person to pull of the very kind of shenanigans you are describing, if there are not redundant layers of process that his work will be compared against.
 
Again, big or small doesn't really matter to me.  The fact that so many things don't work, IMHO, has nothing to do with the size.  It has to do with political games where people don't like something so they slash their budget and then go on TV and say, "Look!  It doesn't even WORK!"  We can accomplish great things when we want to.  And we'd be that much better off if politicians and the media weren't so good at fooling people.  I maintain, and I think you;d agree with me, that a well infomred populace would all but wipe out the modern Republican party.  (And the modern Democrats as well, but they would be pushed back to their more historcical place in the true American Left.)
 
Anyway, that was a very interesting perspective, but I still don't see why you cling to the labels like you do! I read what you say, and, right or wrong, it just doesn't jive what I think of when I hear "Conservative" and certainly not when I hear "Republican." 
 
And thanks so much for the e-mail, and for your continuous contributions to this blog.  I don't think you'll be changing my positions anytime soon (I don't think we're all that far apart on most things to begin with) but I do really appreciate having a principled Conservative around to keep me honest!

"Conservatives" vs. "Libertarians"

Let this sink in...

I came across this over on PoliticalIrony.com.  This is exemplary of the case I've been making for awhile now that "conservative" no longer means what it used to.  Or anything at all, in fact.  That what we have in the Republican Party today is not "Conservatives" but rather Right-Wing and/or Religious RADICALS.  They can talk about "small government" all they want, but it no longer means anything.  It's not REALLY part of their platform anymore. (DHS anyone?) Its just something they throw out there so they don't look like idiots when they push for more tax cuts immediately after complaining about the deficit.  (Too late.)

Because THIS?  THIS is what "small government" looks like.  Libertarianism.  Now I'm NOT a Libertarian.  I COULD BE a moderate one - they're the only part of the Republican party that I have the least bit of respect for.  And I could definitely vote for one, provided that they held Social Libertarianism as highly as Fiscal Libertariansm.  But unfortunately the TRUE libertarians in the Republican Party (like Judge Walker) are pretty much GONE, replaced by Social Conservatives [Religious Radicals] who merely want to lower taxes and deprive the government of its ability to regulate industry.

Because the TRUE Libertarian, the CLASSIC Conservative, would support Judge Walker's decision.  S/he'd also be pro-choice on abortion.  And favor the legalization of Marijuana.  These are ALL "small government" positions.  They are all what the world would like like if, as Ronald Reagan claimed would happen, Government would "get off our backs."  But I'm still waiting, 30 years later, for Government to stop getting MORE on my back.  And with the Social Libertarians now completely marginalized in the Republican party, and Obama's and the Dems' continuous kowtowing to the Right, I don't it happening anytime soon.

Just remember what's REALLY going on here.  "Conservative" is just a niceer sounding (read: better polling) word that the Radical, Religious Right has co-opted to obfuscate their true agenda.  There is nothing "conservative" about them.  It just about Fear, Power and Money.  They use Religion (Fear) to get people to vote for them (Power) so they can pay little or no taxes, and their companies can pollute, exploit and otherwise screw over the public in their reckless pursuit of proifit (Money.)

More on (moron) Political Schools of thought...

In my last post, in addition to lamenting the decaying state of political discourse (in-box politics, bumper-sticker politics and beagle politics), I also tried to make the case that the hard-Right Wing has co-opted the word “conservative” to mean what “right-wing radical” used to, and sufficiently demonized the word “liberal” to the point where most people would rather be set on fire than be labeled one.  In other words, they’ve pulled the whole not notion of Left, Center and Right… to the Right. WAY to the right. I’ve argued this before, but something came to me recently that got me thinking…

There are a couple bits of revisionist history that have become rather fashionable for the Right lately. (And let's face it: After the eight year cavalcade of failure that was the George W. Bush administration, some revisionist history is deperately needed by them!)  The first is that George W. Bush wasn’t really a Conservative at all! Apparently the fact that he had huge deficits and huge federal budgets somehow makes him a liberal. And somehow if he were only MORE like Ronald Regan everything would have worked out. The problem with that? Bush was decidedly MORE Conservative that Reagan in just about every way imaginable. Reagan cuts taxes, Bush cut them MORE. And Regan eventually raised some taxes (six times in eight years, in fact) while Bush never did. Reagan waged a Cold War, while Bush waged a decidedly hot war - two, in fact; which for the first six years of his administration accounts for the bulk of his increased spending. Forget detent: he went for Regime Change!  And while both had huge deficits, the only budget cutting Bush did was to the budgets of federal regulatory agencies. (That worked out really well, huh?) What's more, Reagan practically INVENTED the culture of deficit spending, but that's outside the scope of this post.  And finally while Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor - a famous swing-vote - to the Supreme Court, Bush replaced her with Samuel Alito, a hard-Right Wing Reactionary. So seriously folks, don’t make me laugh: Bush’43 was not only to the Right of Reagan and Bush’41, he was WELL to the Right of them.

And with that in mind, I have to ask:

How far to the Right does one need to be for George W. Bush to look like a Lefty?

I mean… where the hell do you put the center if George W. Bush is supposed to be a liberal?

But the other thing we hear a lot lately, especially with all this “Obama is a Nazi” bullshit going around, is that HITLER was really a Liberal, or a Leftist. Now… as absurd as it is call BUSH’43 a liberal, where the fuck can one get that idea about ADOLPH FUCKING HITLER?! OK… to be fair, there is SOME evidence for it, assuming that you look at it VERY simplistically; almost stupidly, really.

First – The Nazi’s were originally called the “National Socialist Party.” So there’s that word, “Socialist.” That means liberal, right? Well, no, not at all really. (Morons.) But even putting that aside, in the 1930’s, “Socialist” wasn’t quite the epithet that it is now. Back then, it was the kind of label (like, “Conservative” today) that could actually be adopted as a selling point. But in many cases, it really meant absolutely nothing at all. It was just marketing ploy. There was nothing “Socialist” about them. It’s no more meaningful than when Kim Jong Ill calls his country the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.” (Or how Communist East Germany was called the “Democratic Republic of Germany.”) There’s nothing Democratic about ‘em, and there was nothing Socialist about the Nazi’s. It’s a LABEL and nothing more.

Second – It’s been argued that you can’t really place Fascism on a Left-Right spectrum. And that’s sort of true, if you put Communism on the far Left and Capitalism on the Right, since Fascism actually rejects BOTH. Now… to the Righties in this country, with their binary mode of thinking, any rejection of Capitalism MUST therefore be an full embrace of Communism, thus Fascism = Communism. Now… 20 Million dead Russians, felled by Nazi Bullets in WWII might argue otherwise, but… there dead. So I’ll have to.

Here’s why that particular Right-Left analogy is flawed, putting aside the fact that Fascists generally HATE liberals, HATE minorities, HATE dissent, HATE Academia, Intellectualism, etc… While Communism can be viewed as both a Political System and an Economic System, CAPITALISM can not be. Capitalism is primarily ONLY an Economic System. And likewise, Fascism can also not be: It’s not an Economic System at all. It goes so far as to reject economics as the primary driver of human behavior – an idea that lies at the heart of both Communism and Capitalism. It’s purely a Political system. So when we’re talking about ECONOMIC systems, you can certainly put Communism / Socialism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right, while Fascism doesn’t really fit in ANYWHERE. (And “Capitalism” itself can vary in its own level of regulation as well, and yet still remain on the Right!) But, if we’re limiting ourselves to discussion Political Systems, Communism ends up on the far left, Liberal Democracy lies near the Center and Fascism represents the Right. The FAR Right, fine, but if you can accept that, I have to ask…

…How far to the Right do you need to be to look to your Left and see Adolph Hitler?

(I’m looking at YOU, Glenn Beck!)

So... Who's REALLY responsible for all our debt? (con't)

Continuing my "Who ran up all this debt?" discussion from earlier, I thought I'd break the main graph down a little further, as well as add another little chart to perhaps put all this in perspective. (And take a few more cheap shots at Reagan, just to shut the Johnny-come-lately Reganite Deficit-Hawks up.

The first thing that frustrated me about my last post was the fact that "FDR" had such a huge chunk, and that he was not only getting blamed for others who ran up the debt, including debt he inherited, but also credit for those who may have brought it down. So... I thought I'd go all the way back to WILSON. And to really do this right, I need TWO graphs: One to show the contributions of all the presidents who ADDED debt over their years in office (adjusted to 2010 dollars, juat as before) and a second that shows the relative contribution of the presidents that REDUCED the debt during their administrations, and how they compared relative to one an other; again in 2010 Dollars.

Graph#1:

This graph reresents all of the net-debtor Presidents. The total is $14.7 Trillion dollars (in 2009 Dollars) which is more than our current Debt, but don't forget that this ignores the results from all those who paid in DOWN during their term in office.

Graph#2:

This is how the Net-Creditor or Net-Surplus Presedents compare. It's worth noting, for both graphs, that we had to pay a LOT for World War II. President Roosevelt ran up that bill, and President Truman paid it.

But just think about that for a minute... Franklin Roosevelt had to deal iwth both the great depression AND the Secord World War.  Doing so he ran about about the same level of debt that Ronald Regan did.  But... What was Reagan's exscuse? SERIOUSLY!

Now... I mentioned ealier that it IS rather alarming that in ONE YEAR, President Obama has run up a deificit that amounts to just uner 12% of the OVERALL NATIONAL DEBT.  Now...  One might be tempted to think that THIS is the reason all these Newbie Deficit Hawks keep popping up: that in just one year, someone's added 12% to the National Debt.  But is even THAT really unpreciedented?  The following is a chart of ever year in which a 20th Century President has added at least 10% to the National Debt, with Obama's projected 2010 deficit highlighted:

So, as you can see it is not all that unheard of for a President to "break the ceiling" by a pretty wide margin.  Now... Right off the bat, we can give Wilson a break due to World War I, Roosevelt a break for World War II and the Great Depression and, yes, to be "fair and ballanced" Hoover gets a break for having to deal with the Great Depression as well.  What's more, I don't even really fault George W. Bush for his huge defict (basically as big as Obama's) seeing as how he had the whole Mortgage Crisis / Great Recession to deal with, and it goes without saying that a good portion of Obama's deficit is also due to the continuing fallout, and a continuation of many of the same policies. (You just can fix a $1.5T deficit in one year without DESTROYING your economy!) The one that really jumps out at me though is 1986.  How the hell does Ronald Reagan (or his present-day idolizers) justify his being on this list in 1986?! I REMEMBER 1986 and the biggest news-story of the year was a baseball going between some guy's legs! Did he fight a World War or confront a Global economic disataer? In 1986?!  Christ, if he did, I sure as hell don't remember it!

So when it comes to deficits, you should remember that not all deficits are created equal, and that some are more unavoidable than others and others still are more justifiable.  I'm not saying it's right, just food for thought.  But don't be so quick to accept everything the media tells you: They've been covering for the Right for DECADES now.

So... Who's REALLY responsible for all our debt?

I'd like to take one more look at the Federal Deficit and the National Debt, before going back to health care for a few posts.  I made up the follow Pie-Chart, to show which administration's contributed the most to the National Debt.  I'll explain some of my assumptions, and methodology, and then I'd like to note a few bits of information that I took away from it.

This is through the projected end to FY2010, and is in 2010 dollars. The first point that might need explaining is "FDR." Since the National Debt did not appreciably change between WWII and 1982, and as a concession to our conservtaive friends, I attributed all of the debt accumulated prior to Ronald Reagen to Franklin Roosevelt. I could just as well have said Harry Truman, or anyone else really, since this was where every President since Roosevelt decided to leave the National Debt, so whatever... We'll just call it "FDR."

So, as to my methodology... I got the overall National Debt, by year, from the Treasury Department's Website. For each year, I adjusted for inflation using E.T.'s Inflation Chart. THAT only went to 2008, so I assumed 3% inflation for 2009 and adjusted all the numbers accordingly. So, taking the overall debt in 1981 and calling it "FDR" I looked at the change from year to year and calculated the deficit or surplus (in 2010 dollars.) So the combined deficits from 1982 to 1989 were attributed to President Reagan, 1990 to 1993 to the first President Bush... you get the idea... to determine what each Administation was responsible for since Reagan took office. (And remember, since the debt level in 1981 was within 2.2% of what it was in 1947, there's no point in talking about anyone in the intervening years. Hence I've lumped it ALL into "FDR." (And then I added in, the recently projected $1.6T deficit that is being projected for Obama in 2010.)

Now... right off the bat, I'll give the newly minted Deficit Hawks on the Right one point: It is a bit disconcerting that President Obama managed to accout for 11% of of the overall nation debt in just one year. I think it's celar to EVERYONE, not the least of whom is President Obama, that we cannot continue on THAT path. But consider this:

A full 66.6% of our current National Debt is attributable to Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George Walker Bush. Bill Clinton accounts for a scant 4%, and even with Obama's record-breaking deficit, all Democratic contribution COMBINED account for only a third of the overall debt.
Now... to anyone who points out that the Republicans had the presidency for 20 of the 28 year prior to 2009, all I have to say is this: That only means they had more opportunities to try and FIX the problem! Bill Clinton did more in 8 years to address the budget deficit and the National Debt than the Republicans did in 28!

And the only reason I find that amusing is that all the Deficit Hakws these days seem to come from RIGHT! As I've said before, if your concerned about the deficit, whatever you do: DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN!

WHO'S the party of fiscal responsibility?!

I love it when I hear conservatives talk about exploding deficits. And I love this not only because they only seem to care about it when there’s Democrat in the White House, and/or a Democratically controlled Congress, but they scoff at the very idea that the Democrats show any fiscal restraint, or are capable at all of reining in spending, while they proudly (and stupidly) post about the fiscal credentials of the Republicans. This whole notion is laughably absurd to anyone who knows what they’re talking about, just like the “liberal media” myth is, but if you need some facts to support your arguement, here’s something that might help:

(Click for full-size)

This graph shows the National Debt, adjuster for inflation to Y2K dollars. It's a modified (only for color) version of what can be found on The National Debt Clock's FAQ. It only goes to 2007, but you KNOW the problem's only gotten worse since then. The Right Wing Media keep hammering THAT home, don't they? And it’s all Obama’s fault, right? Even though we’re only about a month into the FIRST Obama budget, and the budgets for ’08 AND ’09 were in fact singed by George W. Bush! That’s a FACT by the way, not “liberal bias” or “making excuses.” I’ll own up to the deficit from 2010 on, but I won’t take any guff from some blowhard who was silent all through the Bush years, and who thinks that even the 2009 deficit has anything AT ALL to do with President Obama.

There a couple of things about the graph that might need clarifying. First off: Red = Republican Budget, Blue = Democratic Budget. I figured I’d keep that convention. Second, you’ve got to remember that a President ELECTED in Year X, doesn’t start his term until Year X+1 and the budget he passes that year doesn’t take affect until year X+2. So President Kennedy, for example, was elected in 1960, took office in 1961 and his first budget wasn’t in effect until 1962. That’s why you don’t see the first transition to Kennedy's Blue (from Eisenhower’s Red) until ’62, even though he was elected in ’60 and took office in’61. All clear? Good! Now let’s walk through the graph…

The first thing you see is a huge spike in the later Roosevelt years. The cost of the New Deal? LOL, no. That would be the cost of World War II. And it was paid down to a sustainable, strategic debt level within a few years despite another War (Korea) waged by his successor, President Truman. For the most part Truman had a balanced budget, even despite the war, and overall the natinal debt remained constant with a very slight downward trend until his final year in office. Switch to President Eisenhower, a Republican, and you’ve got about the same thing. Pretty consistent debt levels, even a very slight downward trend – and remember: He build a National Highway system! So even given that very New deal-esque / Keynsian stimulus project, he kept his budgets balanced as well. The Kennedy/Johnson years showed much the same thing. Even with the great society progrmas, the National Debt didn’t budge in those years. So far, I’d say both sides are on the same page when it comes to budgets, taxation and spending. (Namely: Pay for what you spend!)  And they’re both showing a restrained, but clearly Keynsian approach to managing the economy. (You can point to an expensive governement "project" is every case.)

Now it starts to change a bit in the Nixon/Ford years. Starting here we see the first appreciable up-tick in the National debt since World War II. Nothing extreme, but it does look like they’re starting to feel the combined affects of not only President Johnson’s social programs, but their own taxation policy, the Vietnam War costs, and the beginning of the economic turmoil that would plague us through the 1970’s. One thing that’s really apparent is that in President Nixon’s second term (three years of which were served by President Ford) not only did we have three years in a row that we ran a Federal Budget Deficit for the first time since World War II but each of these deficits were also the largest we’d seen since the War.  (This is evident becuase at no other previous time do we see as large an increase in the National Debt.)

Now… Given what was going on in the 1970’s, I don’t mean this as a swipe against Presidents Nixon and Ford. Truth be told, I don’t think either was actually a bad President. The more I read about Richard Nixon the more I despise the man, but the more I admire the President. There’s very little you can point to policy-wise to criticize, either in terms of foreign or domestic policy. (I’m not too crazy about his Supreme Court nominees, but hey: I AM a liberal, after all!) But I seriously don’t have any problem with the fact that they ran deficits. I’m a KEYNSIAN! And if you understand Keynes, you’ll understand that running a deficit in a recession (which pretty much describes most or all of the 1970’s! LOL) is no vice. I only point it out because the only people I hear harping on the deficit are REPUBLICANS, and even then only when DEMOCRATS are in office! But up to this point, there is no evidence to support that Democrats even really RUN deficits. I know, I know: It was a long time ago. Things are different t know. Yeah, they’re a lot worse… for REPUBLICANS!

Moving on, President Carter fits the mold, both for the Democrats being the ones to show fiscal restraint, and in support of the Keynsian model of economics. His budgets were wither balanced or ran a surplus, and yet the economy still taked. What does this show you? In addition to bolstering the Democrats as the one who know how to balance a budget, it also shows that a balanced budget doesn’t give you economic success. It as Keynes predicted: In bad times you HAVE to run deficits! You increase spending to stimulate the economy, and you worry about the budget only once things are on good footing again. Cutting spending HURTS.  And it hurts even more than raising taxes does in terms of people incomes.  So President Carter had the wrong plan at the wrong time… just like the deficit hawks (meaning Tea-Bag Conservatives) do NOW. But starting in 1982, the first year that a REAGAN budget was in effect… everything goes totally cattywampus.

Why the hell do these tea-baggers hold up Ronald Wilson Reagan as their idol? If they had any clue at all they should DEPSISE THE MAN! And George Herbert Walker Bush as well! Check it out… Every single year of the Reagan-Bush administration we ran a deficit. Every. Single. Year. TWELVE YEARS IN A ROW! Recession or Boom-times... It didn’t matter! Talk about runaway spending! Talk about out-of-control government! And not only did they RUN deficits, but they ran HUGE deficits! Every year the deficit was bigger than it had been in any year between Wordl War II and when they took office! I don’t have the exact number, but judging form that graph I’d say at least TWICE as big!  Imagine that: Twelve years in a row of running a deficit that DOUBLED the previous record, adjusted for inflation, and these poeple still claim credability on fiscal matter!  Their audacity in makig that claim is surpasssed only by the ignorance of their supporters who believe it.

And I’ll reiterate: I’m not necessarily trying to take a swipe a Reagan here! I found Reagan to be an inspiring leader, even if I did find his policies lacking. And I actually really liked George Bush, the elder. I’d have voted for him twice, had I’d been registered to vote at the time. So again: This is not MY criticism. It just shows that if the National Debt is your chief concern, maybe you shouldn’t idolize the guys who brought it from just under 2 Trillion Dollars (in Y2000 dollars, remember!) in 1981 to over 5 Trillion dollars in 1993. A twelve year trend of record deficits that increased the National Debt over two and half times and yet somehow these people can still claim “fiscal restraint” with a strait face. Unbelievable.

Oh… it gets even worse for them!

Once Bill Clinton comes into office, we immendiate see a DECREASE in the deficit. IMMEDIATELY. (Notice how the increase in the Debt is about half what it was in even the best year under Reagan or Bush’41?) And even so, if you were around at the time, you’d still have heard Rush Limbaugh, back in his early days, ranting in tirades about how Clinton’s ruining the country, taxing the hell out of us, running deficits… (See? They were blithering hypocrites even back then!) And yet, we not only had eight strait years of GROWTH under President Clinton, but by the end we saw a balanced budget, followed by TWO years of budget surplus. So again… WHO’S THE PARTY THAT HAS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?!  (And to anyone who would ask why he could have that surplus immediately, it just goes to show how bad thjings were under Reagan/Bush.  The spendign cuts and tax increases that were needed would have destroyed the economy had they gone it all at once.  At that point we were pretty much addicted to gov't spending and had to weened off slowly.  (And HOW MANY times od we here that it's the DEMCRATS that want to make people dependant on the government?!)

Oh… it gets even worse for them!

George W. Bush. The all-time heavyweight champion of drunken-sailor-like fiscial irresponsibility. Think about it: The man was handed a budget surplus, with low interest rates and a strong economy. Allhe had to do to keep a balanced budget, a suplus, actually, and continue to pay down the national debt was... NOTHING AT ALL! And within ONE YEAR he turned a record surplus into a record deficit! And that’s before the War in Afghanistan even started, let alone Iraq! What’s more, neither war was ever actually IN his regular budgets. Even several years in, he was still funding them with “emergency spending” bills. This was a gimmick to make his budgets look better, and his deficits smaller, but the effect on the National Debt is still the same. Deficit spending is deficit spending, after all. So he’s right back on the Reagn/Bush’41 path. He didn’t even raise taxes to fight his wars! It’s absurd! EVERYONE raises taxes to fight wars! (And THAT was also before TARP, the Auto bailout, the Stimulus, etc…)

Which brings us to President Obama. And here we go again, with the Right complaining about Obama, and the deficit. The claim he’s “tripled the deficit.” This is a LIE however, because his budget INCLUDES the war finding up front, rather than playing Bush’s childish game of “hide the salami” with it. In truth, his budget deficit is up something on the order on 20-30%. A modest increase only, and certainly on par with what we saw during the Reagan/Bush’41 and Bush’43 years.  (When these same clowns were silent about it.)

Now remember… and it bears repeating… I don’t think Bush'43 was wrong to do TARP, the Auto Bailouts or the first stimulus. Nor do I think Obama was wrong to continue these policies or pass his own stimulus. I’m a keynsian, and I aced Macroeconomics in grad school, and I KNOW how these things work. These things were NECESSARY.  So again, in and of itself, I am not trying to criticise Republicans or praise Democrats here. I’ve expressed admiration for both Reagan and Bush’41 and I’ve said before that I was never really a fan of Bill Clinton's. I do despise George W. Bush, I’ve made no secret about that, but overall I don’t want this to come off as a purely partisan hit piece. That’s NOT the point here.

The point, and what need to be taken away from all this, is that if you are concerned about the National Debt, and the annual Budget Deficits, whether you are a tea-bagger or not, there is NO EVEIDENCE, at all, going back almost 40 years, that the REPUBLICANS are the ones who show fiscal responsibility, and the DEMOCRATS are the ones who spend willy-nilly. If anything this is a swipe at the ignorant tea-baggers who are so angry, but have been brain-washed by the very people who caused the problem into blaming it on the only ones who've shown any interest in fixing it! If these tea-baggers had any brains at all, they be voting for DEMOCRATS, in droves!

But hey, since when has the media ever let FACTS get in the way of promoting Right-Wing propaganda?

Coming next… WHY the Republicans keep doing this, and why they’ll NEVER stop!