Skip to main content

You've by now seen this graph and variations of it at least a few dozen times, but it is always worth repeating. Because it eventually starts to sink in.

For evidence of that, consider this article from Businessweek, pointing out Republican hypocrisy on the debt they helped create.

July 26 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of Washington.

“In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,” the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. “I’ve got news for Washington - those days are over.”

Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.

Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.

Republicans, of course, have an answer: "'Blaming Bush for the structural deficits we've known would come since the early 1990s is beyond irresponsible.' said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Cantor." Right, except that the mid to late 90s saw unprecedented growth and a budget surplus. That's another one of those liberally-biased facts you can't expect a Republican to acknowledge.

Unfortunately, what you can't sum up in an easy-to-understand chart is the fact that Republicans don't care about the deficit. It's purely a political issue for them, a cudgel to keep that "tax and spend" mantra against Democrats going. All they really care about is making their friends richer and making the poor suffer.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:58 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  A basic deficiency in a timid strategy (6+ / 0-)

      That's what's reflected in the approach the Republicans are taking to beat Obama over the head. To avoiding making them mad, he's not given a completely honest talk to the American people.

      He might have smelled this coming and punched hard on the deficit he inherited from Bush, Bush and Reagan, as well as what the Recession was doing to both the debt and revenue.

      There have been times that I thought his strategy for individual battles bordered on being brilliant including the tactics the Democrats ended up using.

      But his grand strategy for attaining his goals, getting himself re-elected along with a Democratic congress fell apart early. Even given his timidity, he needed to recognize early that they were damaging reality with their propaganda on Obamacare, the deficit that supposedly failed, etc.

      The auto industry bailout was a major success and I'm not even sure it is going to help in the Car belt, what's left of it. How could he have done that without having a greater impact for good in the midterm election.

      This does not bode well for our future and the best we can hope for is that very rich will end up eating themselves with their ravenous greed.

      Too much of our strategy has resembled Poland trying to negotiate with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, offering up one city after another in an effort to buy them off. The two invaders say us, hell, we want it all.

      •  A basic deficiency (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I have a question about this issue of the President's "timidity" -  I understand and share the frustration that he didn't take a harder line much earlier.  It would have been more satisfying if he had announced six months ago that he would veto anything but a clean debt ceiling increase, and just kept hammering on that.   My question is whether it would have made a difference.  I've seen idealogues and demagogues up close and personal.  They aren't rational and they don't operate in good faith.  From that perspective, this brand of Republican will never do the right thing, never respond constructively no matter what the President says or does.  Ultimately, they have to be defeated in the voting booth because there is no other tactic or strategy that works against hate-filled, irrational demagogues.

        •  I Agee with you (0+ / 0-)

          Except I think it would have made a difference in the 2010 elections,( and can still make a difference in the 2012 elections) in that if he had spent more time punching Republicans for their lies and obstructionism, and less time punching hippies he might have kept enough of his base voters to overcome the enthusiasm gap that kept so many Democratic voters at home.  That you can attract more bees with honey than with vinegar is true of voters, too.

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            It's hard for me to play armchair general here, but whatever they did was ineffective. Truth was that they got a lot of good legislation, especially from the House and I didn't see them using it.

            Obama saved the American car industry and it was turned into a negative. All I know is that there was a campaign to be conducted that wasn't and it's hard to tell why. Maybe it was the success of the waiting game in 08.

            But he's making a big mistake by calling some of us ultra left and silly shit like that. Goddamit I'm 67 and he's not a lot older than my oldest kid.

            I'm just an old southern liberal die hard FDR supporter who for a time gave the south a brighter picture and without challenging race as I wish, there wouldn't be such a fertile bed for the right wing GOP without the South now.

            It's easy to forget that were it not for the Deep South, FDR would have lost control of both House and Senate in 1942, the invasion of North Africa coming about a week too late to swing things -- but he didn't try to push it up. Roosevelt did a super job in 1942 with us winning the decisive Midway battle and taking on the German Army in Africa, driving them out despite rocky patches. Imagine that, six months after the war started, GOP war carping continuing, the Navy won the one essential victory in the Pacific and in less than a year after Dec. 7, we landed an invasion fleet on a hostile shore.

        •  fair question (0+ / 0-)

          He has his moments when he's clearly not timid.

          Where I think he is timid is in dealing with the primary program of the GOP which was to completely derail his presidency which has led to a whole serious of really dishonest attacks that have sometimes gone unanswered or unanswered for two long.

          I don't think any president ought to have to prove he's an American, but he was effective on that at a good time, but it was a useless drag on the presidency for too long.

          These are extraordinary times. I thnk they're misreading the tea leaves and have a huge lag time built in. Right now, I think the American people based on polls are saying where they're willing to go and what they want. Saying they want compromise doesn't mean both sides have to give up, but there's no reason in the GOP. Trying to be post-partisan is really hard, but I agree the circumstances are unusual. But if he can't get control of his presidency, we'll find that there will never be a legitimate democratic president in my lifetime.

    •  Joan always deserves tips & recs (0+ / 0-)

      even though she is a front pager.

      A few days ago, someone wrote a diary claiming that front pagers were somehow underserving, bc they don't always get a lot of explicit recs.  IMHO, people didn't bother to rec not out of indifference, but bc they assumed it was redundant.

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:05:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Keep the calls coming in (0+ / 0-)

      I think it's important to call people like Speaker Boehner and whip Kevin McCarthy, maybe even Eric Cantor to register disapproval.  But I also called Michele Bachmann's office and praised her for OPPOSING Boehenr's plan.  It's worth calling Jim Jordan, Joe Walsh and a few of the other Tea Party types to urge then to oppose Boehner's plan because it doesn't cut enough, so that the plan fails in the House and we get a chance at something better.  Apparently calls are still coming in strong today, but it is uncertain on what side.

      All numbers easily findable at and there  is always as well.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:32:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the Republicans (19+ / 0-)

    just resent the gross unfairness of asking them to shoulder responsibility for paying for the debt they have amassed.   Other people should pay for that debt, poor people, working class people, middle class people.   How can the rich get infinitely richer if they have to pay their fair share?

  •  On the news last night, (9+ / 0-)

    I think it was Jake Tapper who stated that the Obama admin added 35% to the deficit. No acknowledgement of the difference between short term debt and the long term debt incurred during GWB's term. I nearly broke the tv.

    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -FDR

    by SoCalSal on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 10:18:53 AM PDT

  •  SUPERsweet to have (8+ / 0-)

    a mag called Businessweek calling out the "party of business".

    Good for them!

    From Neocon to sane- thanks to Obama- and Kos.

    by satrap on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 10:29:00 AM PDT

    •  BusinessWeek is well known for being communist! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JC from IA

      Must be.  Bloomberg too.  Why everyone's a commie but the Tea-liban!  And I not so sure about them. :)

    •  the Repugs lost the corporados years ago (0+ / 0-)

      In 2006, 2008, 2010 and so far in 2012, the majority of corporate donations went to Democrats, not to Repugs.

      The corporados don't care about the Repug Party's libertarian ideological warfare--the corporados only care about their wallets. The Repug Party no longer represents corporate interests--we do.

      Combined with simple demographics that place Angry White Men as just another minority by 2050, the loss of corporate support means we are witnessing the end of the Republican party in its current form.  It will either adapt or die.

      The flip side to that is that as the remaining sane Repugs flee the insane asylum that their party has become, they flock to the Dem Party instead, thereby turning it (literally) more and more Republican.

      I'd prefer they stayed in their own party and took it back from the nutters.  We already have one Repug party.  We don't need two.

  •  The GOP's chips are being called in now (8+ / 0-)

    They have to come up with a plan very soon, or they are going to be in a god-damn world of hurt. NOBODY is buying the snake oil they're selling anymore.

    The fact that this is now the second named mainstream business publication to call out the GOP is very heartening.  The pressure is ON.


    by slippytoad on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:04:44 PM PDT

    •  Politico is reporting that at this (0+ / 0-)

      morning's Republican caucus meeting, Cantor told everyone to quit whining and support Boehner's proposal.

      That he said, it sucks but do it, basically.

      Whole thing is Here

      Which, if it's true, surprises me because I thought Cantor was just waiting to stick a knife in Boehner's back and take the speaker's job for himself.

      But maybe Cantor's seeing that he doesn't want Boehner's job right now. Or the Wall St. Overlords got to him. Or maybe it's all bullshit, and Cantor's going around behind Boehner's back, sticking the knife in as we speak.

      No idea, but I do like all those possibilities.

  •  They are driven more by ideology now (7+ / 0-)

    than by implementing the wishes of the 1%ers.  They are becoming a threat to stability, a stability that is key the the Great Class Stratification.

    I can feel which way the wind is blowing.

    The American people must wise up and rise up!

    by TomP on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:33:59 PM PDT

  •  Joan, thanks for the graph. I was looking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lostinamerica, sherlyle, MKSinSA

    for it to send to someone I talked with yesterday, and hadn't seen it.  

    We should see it every day.

    Science is hell bent on consensus. Dr. Michael Crichton said “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus... which is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,”

    by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:34:43 PM PDT

  •  Look how much of that is just the Bush tax cuts! (8+ / 0-)

    And think what might have been done with that revenue that could have been "job creating" all these years - infrastructure, research, etc.

  •  But hey, they NEEDED that big shiny chromed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    work truck, and the new hunting bow, and the nights at the topless bar.   They just didn't need for their old lady to waste a bunch of money on groceries and homeowner's insurance and braces for the kid.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:35:58 PM PDT

  •  It isn't about Govt. Spending at all (14+ / 0-)

    It is about what the Government spends on.  The GOP gladly gives away money to the big Oil Companies and Corporations in the form of tax breaks.  They gladly spend on the military-industrial complex (but not on Veterans benefits).  Their real agenda is to reroute government benefits to the most fortunate in our society.  They want us to be like a South American Country: Rich Class, a few in the middle, and everyone else struggling.

    What useful pawns the Teapartiers are in this game.

  •  Boner is chanelling the teabagger frosh class: (3+ / 0-)

    when he talks it's as if he showed up last week, not that he's  been all for more spending and more tax cuts for all of the Bush years.  They just make all their past actions disappear. Poof.

    Avg. Medicaid cost to New Jersey: $1936 per child per year. Avg cost of helicopter commute for Governor: $2300 per hour. Guess which one Christie wants to cut back on?

    by Inland on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:39:14 PM PDT

  •  And the GOP (4+ / 0-)

    which is hellbent on throwing this nation into default is demanding that the Administration pay for SS and defense (i.e. Halliberton) first.  Yeah, they spent 10 years robbing SS funds and now feign interest in seniors.  Assholes.

    Vi er alle norske " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:40:22 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps, instead of "political issue," (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kinak, RickMassimo, sherlyle

    we should use the phrase "power play."  True, some people are unabashedly in favor of power plays, but if they some to understand that they're the ones being played, it may be more meaningful.

    by hannah on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:41:23 PM PDT

  •  Obama now threatens Veto of House Bill. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JC from IA
  •  Important... Wu not resigning until... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kinak, sherlyle

    after the debt ceiling chaos is over keeps the maximum number needed to pass something in the House at 217, not 216, which it would be if he resigned now.

    "The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference." 3/28/11

    by BarackStarObama on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:45:27 PM PDT

  •  I need to continue to call republicans my fellow (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    citizens like I need another hole in my ass.

    I'm now able to kinetically question authority for humanitarian purposes.

    by citizen4truth on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:48:18 PM PDT

  •  Obama could be making this argument (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle, Sychotic1

    In fact, he could have been making this argument from day one.

    Obama has the rhetorical skills to make persuasive arguments. Surely he also has a small college of speechwriters available to him.

    He was certainly not shy about making arguments to distinguish himself from Hilary (he was less aggressive, it seemed to me, when taking on McCain, and maybe that was a preview of things to come).

    The most frustrating thing about Obama, to me, even more frustrating than his unwillingness to negotiate like he cares about any principles, is his absolute unwillingness to take a strongly-held belief to the American people and make his case.

    He should have been showing this goddamn chart from the beginning of this silly debate about the debt ceiling, and he should have been standing next to it at every opportunity.

    •  but since he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Terra Mystica, Sychotic1

      he can't use that chart.

      Obama's insistence on extending the bulk of the Bush tax cuts is a large part of the problem.

      •  That's true (0+ / 0-)

        ...though I think he took that position for political reasons rather than for any principles. Obama wants to represent himself as the defender of the middle class, and so asking for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for only the wealthy was part of that approach.

        What the hell he really thinks is impossible to say, however.

        Either he's a pragmatist who thinks that because (a) Republicans are so horrible that it would be devastating to lose the White House to them again and that (b) the electorate needed to win the White House is basically conservative, he therefore has to go out of his way to appeal to the fairly conservative and mostly uninformed (or plain ignorant) independents of PA, FL and OH...


        ...he really isn't a liberal at heart and isn't troubled about being an enabler to further right-wing drift in this country.

        •  results matter. that's what pragmatism means (0+ / 0-)

          I don't actually care what reason Obama has for extending the Bush tax cuts.

          But that policy - chosen for whatever reason - is a long-term disaster for the economy and Democrats.  It may have short-term political benefits (though I'm skeptical even of that when it requires massive spending cuts). But it's a policy disaster.

      •  You forget who benefited (0+ / 0-)

        The rich guys did, but so did middle class tax payers - at a time when the economy is still stumbling and they really needed it. It was also a bargaining chip in getting unemployment benefits continued.

    •  as I've long noted, Obama is not the problem. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Diebold Hacker

      The problem is the Democratic Party, all of it, from top to bottom.  The Dems are not a progressive party--they're not even a liberal party--they haven't been since the 70's. They will not support a liberal or progressive agenda no matter what--we can dig up the corpse of FDR and put it in the Oval Office and the Dems STILL won't support a liberal progressive agenda. The Dem leadership didn't want Obama in the first place; they thought they'd be coronating Hillary for another two terms of "Third Way Democrats".

      The problem is not that the Dem Party doesn't fight effectively for a progressive agenda--the problem is that they don't want a progressive agenda in the first place.  

      We have a two-party political system with two dysfunctional conservative parties.

      Until that changes, nothing else will.

  •  Debt of the past (0+ / 0-)

    It's good political banter to call attention to how the debt of the past has been republican-led.  But, we must look to our debt of the future.  Yes, we can lay blame for a lot of the debt we have on Bush and on Bush Sr. and on Reagan and whichever republican prez you want to put it on.  But, of course, we've also had $4trillion in debt put on our country since Obama came into office...much of it can be said to be "needed" and "saving our economy" and such, but, alas, it's still true that this $4trillion in debt happened under Obama.

    Now?  Well, folks, we have to stop that kind of thinking.  We have to stop that excessive debt spending.  We can't just continue to borrow 40% of what we spend as a country. I mean, c'mon, guys....that's not gonna be something we can continue to do...and we all know it.  Something has to be done lest we go the way of other countries that just failed in that kind of effort.

    How do we remedy this?  THAT'S the whole debate today..that's what has us in such a tizzy, isn't it?  

    Cut, cut, cut?  Well, of course we have to cut....and of course we have to stop the excessive spending...and of course we have to reign in the entitlements that are being taken advantage of and, of course, we have to get more revenue in the way of taxes.  Oh...sorry...that's not to be talked about here...but, who here truly doesn't know that we don't have a massive amount of graft and corruption and abuse within our entitlement systems?  We all know this.  Need links?  I don't.  I know people that are taking advantage of it.  You don't?  Truly?  Honestly?  

    America needs to be saved by being pragmatic.  It has to be fiscally responsible.  It has to be honest about how we're being taken advantage of.  We can't afford to just give and give and give.  At some point, we have to stop the giving and start acknowledging our failure to contol our costs.

    That will be "mean" in a lot of circumstances, but it will save our country.  Let's be honest about what we "give" and honest about what we can "afford".


    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:54:14 PM PDT

    •  nonsense (0+ / 0-)

      The debt is a nonissue. It's standard Keynesian economics----the same economics that surged our economy through the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's--until it was overturned by the supply-side free-marketers who led us into three decades of economic disaster.

      "The debt" is just another excuse for the wingnuts to starve the beast--to eliminate government completely by eliminating its funding.

      Economically, what we NEED right now is large-scale government deficit spending.

      •  Hmmmmm (0+ / 0-)

        Lenny,'re not serious, are ya?

        "Large scale deficit spending"????

        More borrowing...more deficits...more debt???

        And, you think somehow there's going to be a point when we're going to be able to pay all that back?  

        An economist you're not, my friend...and I do admire a lot of what you post here...but this one?  not so much.

        Can't continue with more and more deficit spending just for a short term gain in our populace...somewhere along the line it's gonna have to be paid back dude.

        I've got some kids and grandkids and don't want them to be strapped with that debt we laid on them.  If you do, well, that's just you, guy.

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:40:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Are we supposed to be shocked? (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans lie.  They always lie.

    Simple as that.

    And they do it with such incredible ability, that a large chunk of the population believes them.

  •  Nice diary, Joan (0+ / 0-)

    It's the same article I linked to in my diary on the rec list.  Somehow I'm very flattered by this!

    "A liberal is a man or a woman or a child who looks forward to a better day, a more tranquil night, and a bright, infinite future." - Leonard Bernstein

    by outragedinSF on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:54:53 PM PDT

  •  No Homeland Security? Medicare Part D? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    D in Northern Virginia

    Missing from the graph:

    Homeland Security - the biggest expansion of government since the cold war?

    Medicare Part-D?  Zero CBO review for an entirely non-funded big pharma giveaway?

    And we're going to 'fix' it with no revenue increases?  With a reference to a family using a credit card thrown into 'the speech'?  Mr. Obama, everyone also knows how fucked you are when you can barely scrape together the cash to make the minimum payment.

  •  I have said the Republicans don't care (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kinak, Terra Mystica

    Care about the deficit many times before, but now I think it is worse than that. They want the deficit to be as high as possible so they can use it as leverage.

  •  Any money saved by cuts will not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Terra Mystica, Mr MadAsHell

    Be used to pay down the deficit. It will all go to tax breaks for the super rich and giant corporations.

  •  Can someone help (0+ / 0-)

    me find another figure that shows a transfer of wealth over the past few decades?  

    The figure in Joan's diary is my favorite one to show people about the source of the Bush depression, but I saw a few figures in a diary last week that also help.  But now I cannot find that diary.  

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 12:59:13 PM PDT

  •  I don't know why (2+ / 0-)

    we can't blame Bush.  It's not like Obama's been president for 8 years.  Bush was president for 8 years.  Jesus Christ there are stupid people in this country.

  •  CBPP, not CPBB - please fix (0+ / 0-)

    ...label right below chart.

    Center for Budget & Policy Priorities.

    BTW, a larger version of the chart, suitable for posting on bullletin boards, would be useful.

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:01:32 PM PDT

  •  Republicans ... (0+ / 0-)

    Are unsafe to govern. Anything.

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:01:37 PM PDT

  •  So, what will end up happening? (0+ / 0-)

    Ah...c'mon, everyone.  What's gonna actually end up happening?

    Lots of "entitlements" cut?  -  yep

    Taxes raised on the "uber-rich"? - some

    Going past 2012?  -  yep

    Regular folks getting fucked?  - yep

    It's not gonna be party-specific.  It's gonna happen and BOTH parties are going to put a positive spin on it.

    Wait and see.

    Fucked again...and we just continue to vote 'em in.

    Yeah...that's the ticket.

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:08:58 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Obama can propose a budget that... (0+ / 0-)

    ...raises taxes slightly on all income earners on the West Coast, Northeast, and parts of the Midwest.

    For residents of those states, their social security and medicare benefits will not change.

    Income taxes for residents of the deep south and the Red State parts of the Midwest can have the Bush income tax become permanent. They can also see their benefits regarding Social Security and Medicare slashed. As an added bonus, Obama can pledge to pull all EPA oversight from these states as well.

    This way, everyone can be happy, and the big-talking fools in the Deep South who like to boast about their free-thinking individualism and love of capitalism can feel free to enjoy the marvelous freedom they'll feel shower them from on high.

  •  Well, the story here, of course, is that (0+ / 0-)

    even the business media is starting to mention this.  
    They don't do that sort of thing lightly; the TeaBaggers must really be starting to scare them.

    •  the Baggers scared them long ago (0+ / 0-)

      That's why the corporados have been abandoning the Repug Party in droves, and why the Dems, not the Repugs, got most of the corporate money in the last three elections (indeed 2010 is most notable for the fact that it was the first election in over half a century where the corporados actually backed the losing side).

      Mouth-frothing ideological warfare is bad for business.

  •  Sadly, it is rich richer *AND* poor poorer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Remember how W* vetoed LIHEAP?

    LIHEAP, which is basically a government giveaway to energy companies . . . to help poor people keep the heat on during the winter.

    In other words, he vetoed a giveaway to energy companies because it might help poor people.

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:20:56 PM PDT

  •  The article begs and obvious question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Diebold Hacker

    Why haven't the White House and Dem leadership been screaming this from the rooftops for the past few months and why, given that the Bush wars and Bush tax cuts created the bulk of this mess, why are we talking about massive spending cuts instead of a quicker draw down fro war and increased taxes on the wealthy?

    At the end of the day, the burden and blame for this entire fiasco fall not on Republican extremists, but rather on a president unwilling to fight or rock the boat.

    •  the answer is obvious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pino, Sychotic1
      Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.

      Dems voted for all those things too---before anyone ever even heard of the junior Senator from Illinois.

      This isn't Obama's fault.  It's the entire Democratic Party's fault. They turned into Republican-Lites, their entire program was "me too !!", and now they share the blame for it.

  •  The Question is (0+ / 0-)

    Why should my 86 year old mother have to get a job in today's market so some corporation can hire slave labor in Red China?  If it either that or Clinton era taxes give me the taxes.

    Where there is no vision, there is no hope. George Washington Carver

    by Amayupta yo on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 01:56:20 PM PDT

    •  just a reminder . . . . (0+ / 0-)

      It was the Clinton era that began NAFTA and WTO, and led to all those corporados moving our jobs to Red China and its slave labor.

      When it comes to economic policy, Dems and Repugs are one. They're all anti-Keynesians now.

      •  Correction - He did not begin NAFTA (0+ / 0-)

        if my memory serves NAFTA was well under way before Clinton was ever elected.  That he signed NAFTA was one of the biggest disappointments in my newly minted (I was a Republican until about a year or so before he was elected) Democratic life.

        If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much stupid costs

        by Sychotic1 on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 09:40:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This shows the importance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    of saying something, and showing a graphic, over and over and over.

    Democrats never do this. They think everyone watches all the cable shows and reads three newspapers a day, and they don't. Half the country doesn't know who Eric Cantor is. More than half don't know who Grover Norquist is. It takes time to get this through to people.

    Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

    by RickMassimo on Tue Jul 26, 2011 at 03:15:41 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site