"2008: We're rich enough that we can afford to be stupid.

2009: We're not so rich so let's be even more stupid.

The Obama narrative as packaged by the American media (another all-but-bankrupt industry, not coincidentally) is very appealing. Wouldn't it be so much nicer if a benign paternalist sovereign could take care of all the beastly grown-up stuff like mortgages and health care, like he's gonna do for Henrietta Hughes, while simultaneously blowing gazillions on 'green' initiatives and other touchyfeely things? America has a choice: It can reacquaint itself with socioeconomic reality. Or it can buckle its mandatory seat belt for the same decline most of the rest of the West embraced a couple of generations back. In 1897, troops from the greatest empire the world had ever seen marched down London's Mall for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. Seventy years later, Britain had government health care, a government-owned car industry, massive government housing, and it was a shriveled high-unemployment socialist basket-case living off the dwindling cultural capital of its glorious past. In 1945, America emerged from the Second World War as the preeminent power on Earth. Seventy years later... Let's not go there." --columnist Mark Steyn

And we don't have very much cultural and historical capital left, either.

Republican memories can get foggy

As the republicans get all self-righteous about a stimulus bill which is supposed to aid an economy decimated by eight years of foolishness by the Bush administration, House Republicans practice revisionist history to minimize their own collosal failure. These proud "fiscal conservatives" [sic] let the Bush mis-administration run wild for eight years, with ne'er a mention of deficits, debt, and not once mentioning something as arcane as balancing the budget. As ****** Cheney said "Deficits don't matter."

Let's go back a bit and examine what Bill Clinton left for the incoming Bush administration:

--A $230 billion surplus, with a projected elimination of the national debt by 2012. [Bush's tax cuts nixed that idea rather quickly.]

--A total national debt of $5.6 trillion.

Barack Obama inherits a deficit projected to be well over $1 trillion and growing for 2009. The national debt now stands at $10.7 trillion, or nearly double what is was in 2000. That is $37,703 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

Just in case you forgot

^ "Deficits don’t matter."....

It is impossible to have a surplus.

It is impossible for the national debt to be "paid off".

Who do you think the national debt is owed to? The Federal Reserve, who prints money and loans it to America, WITH INTEREST ATTACHED, to use as currency. They loan us $1 and we have to "pay back" $1.05. Therefore, it is a debt that can never be paid. And therefore, there can never be a surplus.

One of the most impressive attributes of wingnuts is their ability to completely disregard the past eight years of their party's behavior, most notably with respect to economics...

Liberals get trashed as "tax and spend". Why don't Conservatives get called on "borrow and spend"?

It's the name of the game for Republics since 1980.

And never mentioned in the "Liberal" media.

#4 Um...I don't know where you were schooled in economics, but saying we owe the Federal Reserve is a little like saying my local postal carrier owns the paper on my home mortgage.

Lots of foreign debt holders, especially China, but also some wealthy Middle East oil-producing countries. The main reason they don't call in all of the debt is doing so would cause a world-wide economic collapse that would make the current times seem prosperous by comparison, whereas they continue to accumulate interest on the debt.

#6

The Federal Reserve is not part of the government. It is a privately owned central bank.

#4 Here's a better idea of who holds how much U.S. debt.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt 

I must agree that since 1980 there have been no fiscally responsible Republicans.

So why do they always cry out about Democrats spending as if it were some new political response.

Both parties have discovered that spending money is good for their reelection campaigns. The only difference I can see is what they spend it on.

As far as how money is created well that would take a few years of economics in a higher learning institution, but the following link is a great presentation in a way we can all grasp the idea of "monetary policy".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279 

We should stop with the defeatist and negative attitudes. The Republicans have eff it up for eight years, now let the Dems have a chance to fu#k up some stuff. Hell I hope they get lucky.

Too much of politics in the last 20 years has been about posturing, name-calling, finger-pointing, etc. TV, the Internet, etc., have all made these political attention whores ineffective and unpleasant. Not all of them, but the majority. It won't change until all federal political offices are made nonpartisan or we somehow break free of the stranglehold of the 2 party system that has held us all hostage for far too long.

Term Limits.

#11 I disagree, only because we already have one for the president and we might actually get someone really competent and caring some day. Cut the head off the snake. Nonpartisan offices, strip the Dems and GOP of their incorporation abilities, etc. to disband them as much as possible.

You people need to embrace the French lifestyle and culture.

With the combination of 8 years of GWB and 4 years of Obama's government spending, national healthcare, and nationalization of key industries, we will be a big version of France.

It is never easy watching the collapse of a great empire but if you look at history, Italy/Rome, Spain, France, and Great Britain all went through it and came out fine, relatively speaking.

Vive le France!

Hockey Dad you always make me chuckle. Vive la France!!

Our decline is a given just lets all keep the brakes on to slow it down.

Pac,

The two party system works as intended. It allows a clear majority winner most of the time. It is also embedded in our society. It winnows down the varied positions of the masses to some clear planks that can bundle voters.

I think I would like to keep it.

The term limits would allow for a rotation of folks. Some would be better than others but each would be fresh. The power of the position would wane some and regular people could get elected. New faces will try to accomplish what they believe is right and just for their country. If they dialogue their case and win support then they can pass their agenda’s.

No more twenty and thirty year demigods who have the power to shape and change everything that comes through congress.

There will be failures, but the failures will be honest or at least less opportunity for the corrupt.

2. Author: pmn1 Date: 02/17/2009 10:28 AM Reply

Republican memories can get foggy

As the republicans get all self-righteous about a stimulus bill which is supposed to aid an economy decimated by eight years of foolishness by the Bush administration, House Republicans practice revisionist history to minimize their own collosal failure. These proud "fiscal conservatives" [sic] let the Bush mis-administration run wild for eight years, with ne’er a mention of deficits, debt, and not once mentioning something as arcane as balancing the budget. As ****** Cheney said "Deficits don’t matter."

Let’s go back a bit and examine what Bill Clinton left for the incoming Bush administration:

--A $230 billion surplus, with a projected elimination of the national debt by 2012. [Bush’s tax cuts nixed that idea rather quickly.]

--A total national debt of $5.6 trillion.

Barack Obama inherits a deficit projected to be well over $1 trillion and growing for 2009. The national debt now stands at $10.7 trillion, or nearly double what is was in 2000. That is $37,703 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

Just in case you forgot

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

First, there never has been a budget surplus during the Clinton years. Period. There wasn't one under Clinton, and there was no lost surplus under Bush.

It was a Social Security surplus, which was presupposed on all the money owed it by other governmental programs that have been borrowing from it for years.

The lowest deficit we ever had during the Clinton years was something like $17 billion. It was still a D-E-F-I-C-I-T. Furthermore, Clinton's first two years in office expanded the present deficit beyong inflation. It wasn't until conservative Republicans got into power in Congress - via Newt - that this all changed.

So, if Republicans are a little fuzzy with their memories, Democrats are a little "fuzzy" when it comes to the truth.

Furthermore, it was Democrats who were wailing and screaming about the deificit only a year ago, and how horrible it is. Now, they're running a tab of another $800 billion, much of which does nothing to stimulate the economy (like some $40 billion for welfare programs).

At least Harry Reid will get his high-speed rail project. I might add, the cost of the project is more than what the entire state of Michigan will get in the way of stimulus money (so much for being a long-standing member of the Blue State club).

So it seems that Republicans aren't the only ones with a bad case of spending amnesia.

Of course, the excuse will be that because Bush was so "inept", Democrats were "forced" to spend all that money on welfare recipients. This is the 2009 equivalent to "Clinton did it."

Never underestimate a leftist in their ability to twist the truth into knots.

Why hasn't the Dem controlled Congress been able to fix things?

5. Author: haon123 Date: 02/17/2009 10:51 AM Reply

One of the most impressive attributes of wingnuts is their ability to completely disregard the past eight years of their party’s behavior, most notably with respect to economics...

Liberals get trashed as "tax and spend". Why don’t Conservatives get called on "borrow and spend"?

It’s the name of the game for Republics since 1980.

And never mentioned in the "Liberal" media.

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

Last time I checked there genius, Congress has been in Democrat control since 2006.

So it hasn't been the last 8 years of Republican control.

Furthermore, it was Democrats that were integral in halting reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Republicans DO share some of the blame for deficit spending, mainly because the moderates like McCain were the people driving the ship. And it serves them right to be in the position they are in.

But if anyone thinks that Democrats are going to do any better, they're high. As we're seeing now, they take "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend" to new fricking heights.

What Republicans did wrong does not excuse Democrats for being a bunch of tyrannical socialists.

"Republicans DO share some of the blame for deficit spending, mainly because the moderates like McCain were the people driving the ship."

You don't like Reagan? Too moderate?

I dunno. Was he running for reelection in 2008?

You people need to start typing with a think French accent.