Comrade Barack

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Interesting graph

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Excellent graph, Christy.

Reagan was never concerned about the deficit. He embraced a philosophy that as long as we maintained economic growth, the deficit didn't matter (supply side economics). In California, as the rest of this country, that type of philosophy is showing its ugly head right now.

The selective outrage brigade...the handful of Right Wingers here on VJ will parrot what their leaders tell them to say without really understanding how we got into this mess in the first place. It doesn't matter though. All their b!tchin is about as accurate as ####### Cheney is with a gun.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Niels Bohr 72]

Excellent! Geezes. I was having doubts. *washes head*

[DEDixon 39]

Look beyond Presidents. This is a problem with Congress too. Congress has to go along with the budgets Presidents submit.

I'm really confused. They speak of the kids nowadays having to pay for all this, but yet they keep spending. It is sad. It is like there is some kind of internal secret solution that will be employed when that day comes, the day that foreign gov'ts charge us a whole lot more interest (this will happen before they give us a blanket NO!)

The reason the US has never outlawed the Federal gov't from borrowing was because of war (and maybe huge natural disasters). Borrowing was supposed to be available only as a last resort. It wasn't meant to keep people from suffering any, it wasn't meant to prop people up, it wasn't meant to keep family from taking care of family and extended family, it wasn't meant to divide us.

BOTTOM LINE - there is no solution. Our day is coming. No one knows when, but it will come just as it did for Californians. Change has to come from the people, because pols have their own self interest (staying in power) so they will not do anything, the people won't either, because until they can't SHOP for HDTVs and automobiles, they are too busy to care.

BTW, Clinton's surplus had nothing to do with Clinton himself, he didn't have anything to do with the tech/internet boom that started in 1994-1995.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

BTW, Clinton's surplus had nothing to do with Clinton himself, he didn't have anything to do with the tech/internet boom that started in 1994-1995.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Look beyond Presidents. This is a problem with Congress too. Congress has to go along with the budgets Presidents submit.

I'm really confused. They speak of the kids nowadays having to pay for all this, but yet they keep spending. It is sad. It is like there is some kind of internal secret solution that will be employed when that day comes, the day that foreign gov'ts charge us a whole lot more interest (this will happen before they give us a blanket NO!)

The reason the US has never outlawed the Federal gov't from borrowing was because of war (and maybe huge natural disasters). Borrowing was supposed to be available only as a last resort. It wasn't meant to keep people from suffering any, it wasn't meant to prop people up, it wasn't meant to keep family from taking care of family and extended family, it wasn't meant to divide us.

BOTTOM LINE - there is no solution. Our day is coming. No one knows when, but it will come just as it did for Californians. Change has to come from the people, because pols have their own self interest (staying in power) so they will not do anything, the people won't either, because until they can't SHOP for HDTVs and automobiles, they are too busy to care.

BTW, Clinton's surplus had nothing to do with Clinton himself, he didn't have anything to do with the tech/internet boom that started in 1994-1995.

About Clinton - he was a bit of a pragmatist and embraced a lot of the supply-side economic philosophy, however, he also believed that reducing the deficit was important for our economic stability. When GW Bush came into office, he brang into the WH, a lot of Reagonites who believed that as long as taxes are low and there is economic growth, the deficit isn't important. ...and now we're feeling the effects of that.

[mRx 16]

Excellent graph, Christy.

Reagan was never concerned about the deficit. He embraced a philosophy that as long as we maintained economic growth, the deficit didn't matter (supply side economics). In California, as the rest of this country, that type of philosophy is showing its ugly head right now.

The selective outrage brigade...the handful of Right Wingers here on VJ will parrot what their leaders tell them to say without really understanding how we got into this mess in the first place. It doesn't matter though. All their b!tchin is about as accurate as ####### Cheney is with a gun.

To be fair, the flawed theory that "deficits are stimulating to an economy, as government expenditure is an addition to GNP" was originally a Keynesian viewpoint. The supply-siders later picked up on it, just as FDR's, Reagan's and Obama's economic policy advisors have.

I always laugh when that moron Sean Hannity proclaims his Reagan Conservative views, then immediately turns and bashes Obama's deficit. Um... Has he forgotten Reagan out-deficited the wild Vegas-spendin' Carter?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Excellent graph, Christy.

Reagan was never concerned about the deficit. He embraced a philosophy that as long as we maintained economic growth, the deficit didn't matter (supply side economics). In California, as the rest of this country, that type of philosophy is showing its ugly head right now.

The selective outrage brigade...the handful of Right Wingers here on VJ will parrot what their leaders tell them to say without really understanding how we got into this mess in the first place. It doesn't matter though. All their b!tchin is about as accurate as ####### Cheney is with a gun.

To be fair, the flawed theory that "deficits are stimulating to an economy, as government expenditure is an addition to GNP" was originally a Keynesian viewpoint. The supply-siders later picked up on it, just as FDR's, Reagan's and Obama's economic policy advisors have.

I always laugh when that moron Sean Hannity proclaims his Reagan Conservative views, then immediately turns and bashes Obama's deficit. Um... Has he forgotten Reagan out-deficited the wild Vegas-spendin' Carter?

That's not true. There never was a deficit until that damn liberal Obama and the Dimocrats took power. The Republicans were so cheap, Bush had to re-use paper clips and keep using his pencil after the eraser wore out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Excellent graph, Christy.

Reagan was never concerned about the deficit. He embraced a philosophy that as long as we maintained economic growth, the deficit didn't matter (supply side economics). In California, as the rest of this country, that type of philosophy is showing its ugly head right now.

The selective outrage brigade...the handful of Right Wingers here on VJ will parrot what their leaders tell them to say without really understanding how we got into this mess in the first place. It doesn't matter though. All their b!tchin is about as accurate as ####### Cheney is with a gun.

To be fair, the flawed theory that "deficits are stimulating to an economy, as government expenditure is an addition to GNP" was originally a Keynesian viewpoint. The supply-siders later picked up on it, just as FDR's, Reagan's and Obama's economic policy advisors have.

I always laugh when that moron Sean Hannity proclaims his Reagan Conservative views, then immediately turns and bashes Obama's deficit. Um... Has he forgotten Reagan out-deficited the wild Vegas-spendin' Carter?

...and it's worth pointing out that the Bush Administration went into Iraq believing it would be an economic goldmine for us. It was a goldmine for the no-bid contractors....at the expense of the taxpayers.

[Niels Bohr 72]

They had Engineers in the safe-zone in IRAQ and were paying them like 500,000 dollars. I think 3 had died who were members of IEEE.

[mRx 16]

Excellent graph, Christy.

Reagan was never concerned about the deficit. He embraced a philosophy that as long as we maintained economic growth, the deficit didn't matter (supply side economics). In California, as the rest of this country, that type of philosophy is showing its ugly head right now.

The selective outrage brigade...the handful of Right Wingers here on VJ will parrot what their leaders tell them to say without really understanding how we got into this mess in the first place. It doesn't matter though. All their b!tchin is about as accurate as ####### Cheney is with a gun.

To be fair, the flawed theory that "deficits are stimulating to an economy, as government expenditure is an addition to GNP" was originally a Keynesian viewpoint. The supply-siders later picked up on it, just as FDR's, Reagan's and Obama's economic policy advisors have.

I always laugh when that moron Sean Hannity proclaims his Reagan Conservative views, then immediately turns and bashes Obama's deficit. Um... Has he forgotten Reagan out-deficited the wild Vegas-spendin' Carter?

...and it's worth pointing out that the Bush Administration went into Iraq believing it would be an economic goldmine for us. It was a goldmine for the no-bid contractors....at the expense of the taxpayers.

War never creates economic prosperity; it only diverts resources. It creates nothing.

In the case of the GWOT, the manufacturing industry is diverted to creating weapons, aircraft, and vehicles for war instead of creating products for which the consumer public demands.

[DEDixon 39]

Look beyond Presidents. This is a problem with Congress too. Congress has to go along with the budgets Presidents submit.

I'm really confused. They speak of the kids nowadays having to pay for all this, but yet they keep spending. It is sad. It is like there is some kind of internal secret solution that will be employed when that day comes, the day that foreign gov'ts charge us a whole lot more interest (this will happen before they give us a blanket NO!)

The reason the US has never outlawed the Federal gov't from borrowing was because of war (and maybe huge natural disasters). Borrowing was supposed to be available only as a last resort. It wasn't meant to keep people from suffering any, it wasn't meant to prop people up, it wasn't meant to keep family from taking care of family and extended family, it wasn't meant to divide us.

BOTTOM LINE - there is no solution. Our day is coming. No one knows when, but it will come just as it did for Californians. Change has to come from the people, because pols have their own self interest (staying in power) so they will not do anything, the people won't either, because until they can't SHOP for HDTVs and automobiles, they are too busy to care.

BTW, Clinton's surplus had nothing to do with Clinton himself, he didn't have anything to do with the tech/internet boom that started in 1994-1995.

About Clinton - he was a bit of a pragmatist and embraced a lot of the supply-side economic philosophy, however, he also believed that reducing the deficit was important for our economic stability. When GW Bush came into office, he brang into the WH, a lot of Reagonites who believed that as long as taxes are low and there is economic growth, the deficit isn't important. ...and now we're feeling the effects of that.

Everyone wants to point fingers at certain individuals. This is not a "President" thing! This is a Congress thing and a President thing and it is a thing of BOTH parties.

You say "When GW Buss came in" ..... this is BS! It matter none who came in, the situation would have been the same, the DEMS are willing to spend when they are in power and out of power, the REPUBS want to spend only when they are in power so we have massive spending by both parties at all levels. Stop pointing to individuals.

Also, when did Congress go under DEM control during Bush's term? Did they pass Bush's budgets? Did the REPUBS trade war funding with social funding with the DEMS in a backroom deal? It seems they had a deal, because the DEMS came in saying they were going to end war and they didn't do ONE THING to end any war. Instead, they made a deal with Bush, give us what we want in the budget and we will give you war money. What was it Bush pushed through... a prescription program (I forget the name), but that was very unlike him to support such a program so I suspect he traded that for war funding.

So, the special circumstances during Bush's last term was that both sides were getting what they wanted in the budget. Normally, only one side gets their projects funded while the other side is left out, but since Bush needed war dollars so badly, he caved to the DEMS budget demands.

But, no matter about current events, DEMS and REPUBS are spending too much at all levels and this is why the USA will endure a "California" budget event eventually.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

It's all Bush's fault.

[natty bumppo 289]

It's all Bush's fault.

It's all obama's fault.

Hi spookyturtle ... doing okay today?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's all Bush's fault.

It's all obama's fault.

Hi spookyturtle ... doing okay today?

It's all Greenspan's fault.