Intro: "The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has updated a widely cited chart to show that Bush-era tax cuts to the rich and two ill-advised wars - not the economic downturn - are primarily responsible for the massive debt now driving Republicans to cut health, education, social services and every other remotely useful program."

Former President George W. Bush waves while signing copies of his new memoir, 'Decision Points,' 11/09/10. (photo: Tom Pennington/Getty Images)

Thank George W. ... Again

By Abby Zimet, Common Dreams

29 May 11

(graphic: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities}

ust As We Suspected Dept: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has updated a widely cited chart to show that Bush-era tax cuts to the rich and two ill-advised wars - not the economic downturn - are primarily responsible for the massive debt now driving Republicans to cut health, education, social services and every other remotely useful program. As usual, the visuals speak louder than any numbers.

(image: unspecified)

Comments

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

-124 # Activista 2011-05-29 18:22

True - but what Obama did to prevent true disaster? Debt is growing.
Started war in Libya and sent 30K of new soldiers to Afghanistan at million per head per year.This is $30 billion and counting.

+111 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-05-29 22:20

Less than chump change compared to the catastrophes dumped on us by Bush and the Republican masters of disasters.

+100 # ER444 2011-05-29 23:05

Why the negative votes. I am as progressive as you get, but what Activista writes is indefensible truth. Let's pressure our Nobel Peace Prize winning, former constitutional professor to end the wars and give us our freedom from state controls back. I still believe there is no other alternative to Obama, BUT we need to get him to keep his promises and to do what he knows is right.

+10 # Robert H Pflanz 2011-05-31 10:15

It's unfortunate that Mr. Obama hasn't batted these idiots around a bit. He seems to want their approval or at least their opinion before jumping into action. Unfortunately, they only have negative opinions and no approval. If he is our only alternative, we may have to wait for some further catastrophe to happen before he reacts. He seems to think and speak the right thoughts but doesn't follow through very strongly.

+1 # flanagan Mackenzie 2011-06-02 12:14

Intersting definition of indensible truth.

+105 # kernel85 2011-05-30 03:10

It's a lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out of it, and likewise, it's much easier to drive the economy into the ditch than it is to get back on the road to recovery. Without Obama's economic policies, we would be deeper into a recession now, perhaps even a depression. Incessant right-wing efforts to cut just when we're beginning to recover could still send us back into recession.

+6 # True Progressive 2011-05-31 11:28

"Without Obama's economic policies, we would be deeper into a recession now, perhaps even a depression."

That's the canard of Obama apologists. His policies of bailing out the Wall street criminals only saved capitalism, it did not put money into middle class hands, thereby restoring the economy. In fact, by strengthing the purchasing power of the rich at the middle class's expense, Obamma has played into the most radical of right wingers who yearn for a society where a tiny sliver at the stop owns and controls everything, while the rest of us struggle for the scraps.

+8 # WMaceo 2011-06-03 08:13

Please get your FACTS straight. Obama DID NOT bail out Wall Street. BUSH did. Obama bailed out the Auto Industry, which put $$ in the hands of working Americans, all in the auto industry and related businesses. BUSH's BAIL OUR of the Financial Industries put $$ in the hands of the rich!!

0 # RSJ 2011-06-04 10:04

@ True Progressive: That's right, Obama should have just let the global economy go into the tank -- that would have taught the dirty capitalists! Of course, the middle-class wouldn't be middle-class anymore -- they'd be starving, trying to exchange anything of value for food, and wondering when they'd be able to cash a check again someday, since the banks would all be closed. Electricity, gas, any retail activity -- all would be pretty hard to come by since workers who weren't paid likely wouldn't show up for work. Complete societal breakdown just to teach Richie Rich a lesson? Hint: the wealthy are the best able to weather such a meltdown; least able are the middle-class and poor. Great thinking, TP.

But don't mind me; I'm just an 'Obama apologist' for listing the facts you ignore.

+51 # kalpal 2011-05-30 03:14

Obama strated a war in Libya? Why is the media unaware of this? They lied to me about Libyans starting it. Did Obama start the Tunisian and Egyptian conflicts too. You seem to know so much maybe you can share some of the knowledge. And please take the hat off inside, the tin foilis reflecting the lights.

-16 # Activista 2011-05-30 08:06

Libya attacked/bombed NATO? US Neocons - with Bloody Hillary spent 1 billion first weeks on bombing - by September the Obama war will cost as much as Republican proposed cuts.
Obama is increasing military and security spending (NSA, FBI) - the same (or even worse) "war against terrorism". AIPAC rules in USA

+63 # kalpal 2011-05-30 03:17

Really, can anyone truly blame GW Bush when so patently oblivious to what was going on.

His evil overlord, Dick Cheney, chief priest of the the cult of Mammon,along with Karl Rove determined what the agenda was going to be.

+41 # maddave 2011-05-30 22:27

Quoting

Really, can anyone truly blame GW Bush when so patently oblivious to what was going on.

His evil overlord, Dick Cheney, chief priest of the the cult of Mammon, along with Karl Rove determined what the agenda was going to be.

Oh, yeah! I can blame that arrogant, simple-minded SOB! He took the oath - he was the President and "the self proclaimed Decider". That says it all! He pushed through fool-hearty tax-cut give-aways for the rich and presided over the amassing of phony & cooked intelligence data that justified his insane and financially devastating war over non-existing WMD's.

Does this diminish the responsibilitie s of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, Pearle and Feith? Hell no! They all belong before both US & International courts of law for Treason, High Crimes & War Crimes - right alongside George Bush!

+20 # CL38 2011-05-31 20:44

What is so bizarre is that all anyone had to do was read the books about George to see that he always drove the companies he ran into the ground (they were repeatedly financed by dad's cronies to curry favor(when dad was President). Taxpayers bailed out his failed businesses, just as we were forced to bail out the banks and Wall Street.

His business track record demonstrated that he didn't have the necessary intelligence, maturity, wisdom or insight to run the country. He was arrogant and incompetent --a dangerous choice for President; it was obvious he would continue doing whatever he wanted (rather than what was best for the country) without regard for the consequences, even if that meant running the country into the ground. As always, someone else would have to pick up the pieces (and the Republicans have made sure that it wouldn't be a black man/President).

+21 # CL38 2011-05-31 20:46

When he took over the Presidency, developmentally , George was still an adolescent--and a dry drunk. His early failures and relationship with his father left him with a huge chip on his shoulder, a sense of entitlement and no sense of responsibility or accountability (he was always bailed out when he failed, without having to learn from mistakes). He approached the Presidency as though it was his chance to "show" daddy and everyone who'd ever doubted him. (i.e., his cowboy mentality about war and "I'm the decider".)

It would be best for the future of our country, if those who enabled and voted George into office took responsibility for putting him there-- and owned what a terrible mistake it was. They handed him the keys to the kingdom and watched as he botched anything he touched and dismantled everything this country has ever stood for. (comments finished below).

+16 # CL38 2011-05-31 20:47

We could remove the final nails in our collective coffin by facing that the right has added enormously to the overwhelming problems we have...and they're STILL trying to lead us over a cliff. Are we going to continue to be self-destructive and passive, or are we going to take our country back, before it's too late?

+26 # maddave 2011-05-30 09:06

Quoting

True - but what Obama did to prevent true disaster? Debt is growing.
Started war in Libya and sent 30K of new soldiers to Afghanistan at million per head per year.This is $30 billion and counting.

HO, Bros!

I'll stack my peo-Obama credentials alongside of the collective best of everybody else's out there, and say that you-all are giving Activista a bad rap here! Obama DID extend our commitment in Afghanistan, and I defy anyone out there to cite anything other than the profits of Corporate America as a the driving forces in Afgan Ops. As for Libya and Gadaffi (or however it's spelled recently) he acted well within existing laws and did not get us so deeply entangled that we cannot extricate ourselves quickly. In my book Redfuctio Ad Absurdum (below) hits the nail on the head: OHB is caught between the (Real) Powers-That-Be (Corporate America) and Corporate America's puppet congress - and has been for almost 2 1/2 years now. However, it looks like he is getting to be more of his own man now. We'll see better about that over the next 18 months by watching to see whether he gently strokes or hammers Goldman Sacks' balls.

+17 # Capn Canard 2011-05-30 14:19

Absolutely maddave, CORPORATE AMERICA is the problem! But I doubt that things will get all rosy anytime soon. There is still plenty of wealth to transferred from the Middle Class to the Wealthy.

+3 # Reyn 2011-05-31 08:22

Responsibility and decency would be my answer. I've lived in America all my life - my family has lived here for many generations, we fought (on both sides) of the Revolution -- but I was still raised with pretty British values -- so forgive me.

I have NEVER understood the tendency of a portion of the American political structure - a portion that in general I agree with - to abandon all principle the moment they can on something very basic - to whit foreign policy. Should we have been in Iraq? No. Are we getting out of IraqZ? Yes. Should we have been in Afghanistan? Yes -- long before we were. The inhumanity of the Taliban's treatment of others should have brought us in. As it is, the attacks of 911 forced us in. Should we stay as long as the Afghanistani government OR people want us there? Yes. You don't just adventure in and leave your mess behind. You don't do it. And, when you are the big boy on the block, like it or not, you have a responsibility to take care of everyone else.

Regards,

Reyn

+6 # Darryl A 2011-05-31 17:49

Half of my ancestors are like yours--but I didn't inherit the notion that the US is supposed to go to utterly impregnable places (e.g. Afghanistan) and pursue completely unidentifiable "enemies" (not OURS, in any case) to the gross detriment of OUR country's people. I say this as someone who (1) got BA and MA degree to go into the foreign service but (2) discovered, during 3 years at Georgetown (more from OUTSIDE the school than inside), the (3) learned, from living in the Middle East for a decade (Iran) that our "adventures" as you call them into places we know NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT end up destroying other countries, pumping trillions into the coffers of the Military-Industrial Establishment (Ike had it right), and turn the opinions of the rest of the world against us for our blundering, ignoramus, misguided attempts (or so we claim) to "help" other countries. CAN'T BE DONE, bro! Our English ancestors began working toward democracy in 1215, and took us 560 years to produce a colony brave/foolhardy enough to push it through. And we think we can, what?--somehow tutor/crush countries with MILLENNIA-old civilizations into suddenly becoming what our political and religious revolutions of CENTURIES earlier finally prepared us for? Puh-leeze!

+2 # RSJ 2011-05-31 14:16

maddave: While I agree with your conclusion -- I think we'll see Obama getting more done, esp. if he's reelected -- I'll take your challenge concerning the Afghanistan occupation.

The same Pakistani generals who lied to us about bin Laden have been assuring us for years that, should a radical Islamic sect take power, they would secure the country's nuclear weapons. Placing our faith in these officers, for what I think are obvious reasons, is not very wise. If radical Muslims got ahold of Pakistan's nukes and delivery systems, they could launch attacks against India and Israel, opening a full-scale war in the Middle East and South Asia that could potentially kill millions and leave the land irradiated for years. One reason we're maintaining a large force in Afghanistan is to move quickly to secure the nukes should the Pakistan gov't fall to radicals. This is not mentioned by the MSM, but it is a major consideration nevertheless.

+12 # Capn Canard 2011-05-30 14:10

Activista, Obama is at the helm and does bear responsibility but I don't think he could expect to avoid assassination if he didn't support TARP, the Wars, and continued tax cuts for the wealthy. In short we are screwed coming and going. The whole system is funded and controlled by the Multi National Corporations, i.e. Wealth. We The People are DAMMED and expendable. re: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

+3 # flanagan Mackenzie 2011-06-02 12:12

How do you define true disaster? Are you still working? Do you live indoors? Can you afford to eat every day? Is the president the only person in the country responsible to avert disasters, are is citizen involvement paramount to any real change?

+81 # Jim Grandone 2011-05-29 21:00

I think Activista missed the last half of 2008. Obama was not even sworn in as President until the inevitable disaster was already happening. See the movie "Too Big To Fail" and you will see an exactly correct timeline of what happened when. Still don't believe it. Compare New York Times clips of stories on the financial meltdown. If Obama did not do what he did when he did it, we would all be pan handling on Wall Street.

+83 # Regina 2011-05-29 21:37

This item demonstrates the fallacies pursued by the Republican Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of all programs that benefit ordinary Americans. Their goal is the reversal of all gains in living conditions since FDR, since they are in thrall to the ultra-wealthy corporatists who fund their campaigns for office and who resent any compensation for labor (such benefits might subtract from their bonuses). And now, thanks to the Supreme Court, they are being funded by the corporations per se, not just the corporatists. The national debt is merely a pretext -- the obvious means of debt reduction is revenue enhancement, which their puppeteers will not countenance.

-52 # epcraig 2011-05-29 21:53

Obama sold out to the nuclear power lobby so I didn't vote for him. So far I must credit him with making Osama the late bin Laden but he hasn't employed enough Americans to make up for Bush's other failures.

+43 # pamelawy 2011-05-30 08:04

Hang on! Obama doesn't have much say in the dreadful employment situation in this country. That can be chalked up to our corporatocracy: they've chosen their bottom lines over jobs by sending as many jobs as they can overseas, along with their "headquarters" to avoid paying any taxes.

-23 # forparity 2011-05-30 09:40

Actually - you've made a great point. Obama has had nothing to say about it. Go figure. He doesn't understand it. As he and his wife insisted way back in 2007 - a few months before the national media convinced him to run in 2008 - he wasn't qualified yet - to be president, nor had he done anything yet.

+47 # soularddave 2011-05-29 22:06

Quoting

This is $30 billion and counting.

This is about a tenth of one year's "cost overuns" by Hahburton/KBR. 50K troops were removed from Iraq.
The problem is in the TRILLIONS, and the problem is in WHO is getting the money and what they're doing (or not doing)with it. Money spent on labor in the US filters back to the government pretty quickly, but when rich taxpayers are allowed to KEEP their share of tax revenue, it doesn't propel the whole economy.

+1 # Activista 2011-05-30 08:08

"50K troops were removed from Iraq" to other states in the Middle East - NOT back to USA.

+45 # wanda 2011-05-29 22:19

This should be no surprise. What better way to starve the beast than to cut taxes, spend like there's no tomorrow on two wars without paying for it so that it could be said there's no money for anything else but war. Dugh!

-15 # Activista 2011-05-30 08:10

"so that it could be said there's no money for anything else but war"
3 wars - Libya by AIPAC Obama/Hillary. And 4th - Iran we are preparing for.

+49 # Dorothy Ward 2011-05-29 22:44

I'm a Democrat and will vote for Obama again. However, I'm very disappointed that he extended the Bush tax cuts, started war in Libya, and sent 30K of new soldiers into Afghanistan.

I think the economic downturn exists because of deregulation of the financial markets. I'm not sure that the financial markets are now regulated.

Dorothy Ward

+32 # JB 2011-05-30 06:44

Quoting

I'm a Democrat and will vote for Obama again. However, I'm very disappointed that he extended the Bush tax cuts, ....

Dorothy Ward

Obama is a politician, maybe a statesman, but not a magician. He had to extend the Bush tax cuts in order to get unemployment benefits extended. What was the alternative?He's said he won't extend them again. On Libya, I think Obama has carefully kept the US out of that one as much as possible. On Afghanistan, the Pentagon preempted him by leaking their plans first. (Fool me once....)

-8 # AML 2011-05-30 16:02

Obama allowed himself to get painted into a corner and then the 'what else can I do?' routine starts. He'll do it again is my guess.

+26 # Dave W. 2011-05-30 07:39

Dorothy, It's "rock and a hard place" time. Obama HAS NOT governed as he promised in '08 campaign. Pure and simple. Our only other choice is to elect the unthinkable. A Republican who'd be even worse. As to your last comment. NO! The financial markets ARE NOT regulated. Bonuses,perks and salaries are bigger and better than ever. As to where we stand today I suggest reading "1984." Orwell would "definitely" recognize the situation.

+1 # RSJ 2011-06-04 10:15

@ Dorothy Ward: As JB stated, Obama made a deal to give Bush's tax cits for rich two more years in exchange for extending unemployment benefits and the repeal of DADT. Obama didn't 'start' a war in Libya -- that was a civil war already in progress; what he did was join a UN-sanctioned force to keep Khadaffy from slaughtering his own people. The latest news is the the Pentagon is talking about a drawdown and Obama would like to see the troops out of Af-Pak in a year or two.

You're right that the horrible economy is mostly the result of deregulation and there is currently very little oversight of the markets (although more than under Bush); if Obama can get Elizabeth Warren in as head of the CFPB, and it isn't defunded by the GOP, you'll see some changes in that area.

+70 # CL38 2011-05-29 22:49

+55 # CL38 2011-05-29 22:50

We could remove the final nails in our collective coffin by facing that the right has added enormously to the overwhelming problems we have...and they're STILL trying to lead us over a cliff. Are we going to continue to be passive and self-destructive, or are we going to take our country back, before it's too late?

+30 # Davidson Loehr 2011-05-29 23:12

Authors including William Blum (Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II), Naomi Klein (The Shock Doctrine), and Steven Kinzer (Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Changes from Hawaii to Iraq), as well as John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man and successive follow-ups) -- all these have made the process we have used to beggar other nations, and beggar our own to enrich the coffers of "American Interests" -- meaning insane profit for the corporations that give orders to our elected officials. It's tried and true: put the country in enormous debt by whatever means are necessary -- for us, wars of choice, export manufacturing and jobs, cut taxes on the rich, and make citizens pay for Wall Street's illegal casino capitalism (in the S&L scandals, over 1000 banker types went to prison). Unfortunately, Obama was a brilliant Trojan Horse, putting the finishing touches on our American form of fascism. Our government can now arrest anyone, without charges,impriso n them, export them to be tortured or killed, and if citizens mount too great a challenge, they can be defined as terrorists and arrested. It seems a pretty perfect, vicious, circle.

-8 # Activista 2011-05-30 08:16

"Obama IS a brilliant Trojan Horse" - Wall Street "friends" still rule his administration, necons morphed inot neolibs and wise versa.
This lie that Obama had to extend Bush welfare for the rich? PLEASE - eating NYT propaganda?

+19 # h.m. 2011-05-29 23:31

Now we observe the bushies as the mount their spin attack on this situation--which actually have been doing since leaving office. They have gobs of mud all over them and I guess if they can dance the dance fast enough, the mud might drop off or the public won't see it in the blur of motion.

+49 # m 2011-05-30 01:21

JUST AS WE SUSPECTED..??
Are the Liberals, the worthless-feeble Democrats and MILLIONS of Americans so blind-ignorant that they have no clue whatsoever that all that Treasury-Draining Deficit Buildup was DELIBERATE..??
Reagan declared 'Government IS the Problem' while Neo Corporatists and the Republican Party Conned Americans into going on a 30 year long Deregulation, De-taxation Bender on behalf of Corporate want of a Business Life in America free of the 'burdens' of regulatory oversight, taxes or fear of judicial sanction.
They seek a COMPLETELY IMPOTENT, SHRUNKEN, MINISCULE GOVERNMENT, which is either completely out of their way or as far into in their pockets as possible.
They tried for years to Legislate such into existence without great success.
When BuSh II came along, GLOBAL Corporate CONservatives decide to simply STARVE GOVERNMENT TO DEATH and as far as I can tell, they are SUCCEEDING beyond their wildest hopes dreams and ambitions..!!
They now practically own most of the Media in America. The energy behind their effort is bigger, wealthier and more powerful than ever and they have CONvinced MILLIONS of Americans to go along with the dismantling of a Government System which was the envy of the entire world for decades and under which, the way was paved for creating the largest, wealthiest Middle Class the World had even seen.

+11 # NanFan 2011-05-30 01:35

This is a "duh" moment, Abby, because we all know it. We all also know that the so-called "economic downturn" was CAUSED by those very things as well! That it continues has little to do with new soldiers or new wars, as Activista claims, but rather, Obama has a criminal, brain-dead bucking bronco of an economy that he is trying to tame with intelligence, and with common-sense efforts, not the criminal-minds mentality of GW/Cheney and cronies. They were democracy thieves; they care(d) NOTHING, nothing, nothing about the people they were supposed to be serving. And the people who fed them monetarily (their base...big corps) do not care either. This, again, we who have been watching and listening with eyes and ears wide open, already know.

So...nice graph...but tell us something we don't know, please.

And just so you know we know out here...those of us without a "real" podium, I mean...Obama may not be doing everything right or on our time schedule, but at least he has the guts to face Netanyahu with a sensible solution to potentially quell the endless war between Israel and the Palestinians. Now, if he can just severe the horse's saddle and cut off ALL funding to Israel, some $9 billion per year...that would be the most amazing move of his presidency, besides pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq fully, and ending our dependence on oil.

Nan

+24 # Ingrid 2011-05-30 02:52

This should come as no surprise to any THINKING American.

+24 # kalpal 2011-05-30 03:11

Why insert reality and facts into the issue of right wing fantasies about fiscal responsibility?

They wish to continue the nightmare they find to be a pleasing fantasy as they dismantle what made this nation the one the world envied.

As soon as the right wing decimates the middle class and shifts 90% of the nations's assets to its wealthiest 5% they will take a breather and then eradicate all notions of political and personal equality for the poor.

+22 # shawnsprints 2011-05-30 03:16

All we need now is to collect taxes from Corporations and all is well. Remember this does not mean raise the Corporate tax rate--just collect what is due.

+28 # liberalman 2011-05-30 03:28

What was one the GOP's favorite whines to cover up Bush Lite & his crime spree of 8 long, torturous years ( to all but the wealthy of the wealthy)": Don't play the blame game."
Actavista, get losta! Our ( whether you like it or not & I'm sure you do not enjoy a "Negro" in the White House) president inherited a financial/foreign policy boondoggle courtesy of the raping & pillage of some of America's finest patriots..Rove, Cheney, & all the other draft dodging war heroes. Obummer bailed out GM, now we drive this countries version of the Peoples Car, the German Volkswagen...darn socialist. Ooops Activista & all other conveniently forgetful Tea Baggers & company: GM was NOT forced to layoff multitudes & be delegated to the long list of failed American companies. They MADE a profit!! Are now a successful entity thanks to Barrak Hussein Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/make up your mind what he isn't today. Our President Obama has been trying to dig his way out of a hole deeper than has ever been dug before in the soil of this nation. Of course the GOP keeps trying to throw dirt back into the mentioned abyss created by none others than themselves. So stop playing the "Blame Game" you whining apologist of the Far-Right, which is all that's left of the once middle of the road conservative republican base.

+5 # Dave W. 2011-05-30 07:12

liberalman, You may have written one of the most incoherent, nonsensical posts its been my displeasure to read on RSN. If you're a "Liberal" no wonder the word is deriving bad connotations. Activista said NOTHING about a "Negro" in the White House and after many months of reading her? posts I've yet to see any negative reference to the President's race. YOU then turn around and call him "Obummer!" Activista is NOT a tea bagger. GM WAS failing until bailed out and is NOW making a profit. What's with the "Barack Heussin/Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini garbage? I've voted Liberal/Democrat since '74. Obama HAS extended the wars. Obama Has extended the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy which, if you bothered to look at the chart, have contributed the most to our national debt. Obama HAS extended leases for off shore oil drilling AFTER the disaster in the Gulf. Obama HAS suggested cutting nutritional subsidies to low income children and home heating assistance to low income seniors. Obama DID sign a piece of shit health care bill that will ultimately do NOTHING to reign in health care costs and will make already obscenely wealthy insurance companies richer. Obama HAS surrounded himself with financial "ministers of malfeasance" such as Geithner,Rubin, Summers and Immelt. Activista, like many of us expected "just a bit more" from Obama. Republicans ARE dirtbags. At least you get that.

-16 # forparity 2011-05-30 09:37

GM making a profit. Wow. Whoopie.

Here's a very good read (don't get hung up on the source)-you've been hoowinked again:

GM Will Never Repay Taxpayers
Obama's spin on GM's latest profit report is pure baloney

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/24/general-motors-will-never-repa

On the tax cuts. I'm long on record here in believing that the top tax cuts should have been reversed - ever since their stimulus purpose served it's cause back in 2004, or so (tax revs soared 44% from 2003-07).

But since the top top tax rates only account for 18% of the Bush stimulus (tax cuts), should they reverse the tax cuts for everyone else? Raise the 10% tax rate back to 15%. Lower the child tax credits back? OPut back the Marriage penalty? etc?

Also, what's with that chart?? Seems willing to note the current econ downturn's contribution to debt - but not the downturn which began in March, 2000 - which was by far the bulk of the reason why the brief surpluses and the projected surplues turned to massive deficits by 2003. That is not debatable; even Dean Baker was clear on that one. Besides, it's common sense.

How can these nuts just decide to leave it out of the graph?

In any event, the chart seems to suggest that there was no stimulus effect on econ growth, from either Obama's or Bush's stimulus??

+15 # Dave W. 2011-05-30 10:20

forparity, GM is putting AMERICANS to work. They pay taxes. It cuts down on unemployment and contributes to the tax base. Isn't that what the Republicans keep SAYING they're going to do. Of course, they'd rather spend time dictating policy in a woman's uterus, promote ownership of automatic/large clip weapons/destroy the environment/further de-regulate the financial industry/deny gay marriage/wreck our public school system/pollute ocean waters with gobs of oil/create more surveillance systems to spy on Americans/and keep the MIC humming to the tune of perpetual war, besides re-labeling "torture" as "enhanced interrogation." Less government in our lives. What a f*****g joke! Have you read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein? Milton Friedman style economics are designed to do EXACTLY what they're doing. Make a small clique of corporations and individuals obscenely wealthy and leave everybody else eeking out an existence. It's worked before and it's working now. No ambiguity about it. There has been economic growth. It's all at the top. Many articles recently point out that middle class incomes are flat or declining whilst upper class spending habits are returning to pre-recession levels. Freidman's playbook followed to the letter. Now we can extract more blood from the sick,aged,young and helpless to pay the debt. It's all so AMERICAN.

-7 # forparity 2011-05-30 10:27

I think you missed my point - it's a joke that GN is making a profit - a legitimate profit.

-15 # forparity 2011-05-30 15:49

Dave - do you have any respect for the vast majority of Americans?

Polls -even polls from liberal sources - have long shown (even this past year) that a sizable majority want a smaller government, which does less - not more.

I'll always argue for your right to present a case - or just argue, on behalf of that smaller minority who want a larger government that costs more and does more; however - you've got a long road ahead of you.

I'm more interested in fighting for the right of that debate.

+9 # Dave W. 2011-05-30 17:41

forparity, It would depend on your definition of "the vast majority of Americans." In point of fact it's my educated opinion that the "vast majority of Americans" aren't the "sharpest tools in the shed." They have, when they bother to vote at all, rather consistently voted against their own best economic interests on a number of occasions. I'd like a government that looked out for the interests of hard working Americans, those who wish to work but are unable to find employment, the poor and minorities who, through no fault of their own, have been stigmatized by one of the most racist countries in earth's checkered history, senior citizens, kids, our decaying environment,etc . I am singularly NOT interested in assisting the wealthy with anything. They do quite well enough without government help. I want to live in an egalitarian/altruistic society that puts the needs of the many in front of the needs of the few. Americans for too long have taken far too much for granted. We are not "God Blessed" anymore than any number of other people on the planet and quite frankly we play the role of the "ugly American" far too well and too often. Millions of our fellow citizens never read a book, watch any kind of news, regularly engage in mind numbing forays into inane "reality" based? entertainment, and know about as much history of their own country as Goober Pyle. That answer your question?

+5 # Reyn 2011-05-31 08:24

District 26.

Polls only answer the question asked. FACTS show pretty clearly that most Americans don't want any such thing - not when they understand what they are being asked.

District 26.

There will lots more of them now I think.

Regards,

Reyn

-2 # forparity 2011-05-31 09:12

Needless to say, this is true, Reyn.

Folks have little problem offering that they want to spend less money - but when it's time to purchase the basketball tickets, or when asked if they want the apple pie w/ice cream after dinner, they forget for a moment about the big picture.

Polls have been clear in the question about the big picture - A strong majority would prefer the federal government to be smaller, spend less, and get out of their lives - the way the founding fathers intended it to be.

A good example on the polling, to drive home your point might be the AZ illegal immigration bill.

The Pew Center conducted a national poll, and in the questions spelled out the two most contentious measures in the bill (the thrust of what the Obama WH sued to block - what the left went rabid over) and found that nationally, 73% and 69% of the people supported those measures.

On the other hand the very same poll asked if they approved of the "Arizona Bill," by name - and only 59% supported it.

Why the difference? The WH, the Dems, the entire national media trashed the AZ bill (seldom ever actually describing the details of the measure), so "by name" it had a very bad taste - but when the people were educated on what it was actually enacting - they liked it very much.

+14 # photo01 2011-05-30 04:01

If you make a graph of the moneys spent to "shore up the country" (help the banking sector, wars, etc.) you will see that the graph continues from Bush to Obama and climes at the same rate. It does not change even a few percent. It should be obvious to anyone with an open mind that both political parties are controlled by exactly the same commercial interests. Follow the money - who gets richer and richer? No changes there.

+15 # Dave W. 2011-05-30 07:32

photo01, Good points. Obama received 800+ million from Wall St. during the '08 Presidential campaign. McCain slightly over 600 million. I've voted Democrat since '74. The GOP has been the enemy of poor and working class people for over 110 years. Those of us on the left have known this for a long time. It's the Democrats, and their failure to protect the interests of those who have depended on them, that have enabled the pernicious and ravenous Republicans to put us into the boat we now sail to oblivion today. A "D" in back of a name doesn't mean squat unless that person is ready to back it up with consistent egalitarian ideology. How hard can it be to pick out a "blue dog" running in a pack? Millenniums of Egyptians have lived on the Nile. Millions of Americans are living on "Denial." When senators such as Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu are considered "Democrats" progressives/liberals SHOULD start smelling a rat.

+1 # RSJ 2011-06-03 02:18

@ Dave W. You should get your facts straight, Dave. Obama raised just over $600 million TOTAL in the 2008 campaign, and his no. 1 contributor were the employees of the University of California at $1.6 million. 2nd were Goldman, Sachs employees (and their families) who contributed $994,795. Where did you get the wild idea Wall St. gave Obama $800+ million?

Sources:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/02/cost-of-08-presidential-race-a.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/25/michael-moore/barack-obama-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions/

+20 # fhunter 2011-05-30 04:11

DID THE BUSH-ERA TAX CUTS PRODUCE JOBS??? AS MANY AS CLINTON'S TAX INCREASE???

-4 # forparity 2011-05-30 09:49

Oh goodness - Clinton's tax increases (David Cay Johnston told me that Clinton gave bigget tax cuts to the rich - oh, look, he told that to Bill Moyers too:

BILL MOYERS: You point out, by the way, that Bill Clinton as president gave the super rich a larger tax break than George Bush's tax cuts, right?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: ..I'm the guy who broke the story and reported on the fact that Bill Clinton gave the super rich, the 400 highest income people in America a big tax cut. They were paying 30 cents out of each dollar of their income to the federal government when he came into the office. When he left, it was down to 22. Bush has lowered it to 17. Now, first of all, notice you're probably paying more than 17 cents. May well be paying more than 22. But Bush gave them an eight cent tax cut-- I'm sorry. Clinton gave an eight cent tax cut and Bush only gave them five cents."
-----

Now - the Enron bubble - the dot.com bubble of greed and fraud - created the jobs in the 90's economic bubble.

When it crashed - collapsed - in March, 2000, all that had been given was taken away: jobs, tax revenue (that produced surpluses), etc.

When the housing bubble collapsed in 2007 - all that it had given was taken away.

Economic bubbles are bad.

+13 # RSJ 2011-05-30 04:25

@ Activista: Let's see if Obama uses bin Laden's death as an excuse to withdraw.

As far as Libya, we aren't invading or occupying that country -- we are part of a UN-sanctioned force to prevent a bloody dictator from slaughtering his own people. This is one of the things the UN is supposed to do. Would you rather Obama let Libyans be massacred by Khadaffy? What would you say then?

-1 # Activista 2011-05-30 08:40

- as Libya goes - we are bombing, sending drones to kill Qaddafi grandchildren (3 under 12) - destroying most socially advanced country in Africa (free medical care, free education, generous pensions) to privatize OIL revenues for profit of few/BP.
Qaddafi is/has been dictator - but to support civil war is CRIMINAL.
Go and read outside the corporate media like NYT - Google keywords:
illegal-aggression-genocides-sovereign-libya-bring-nato-criminals-justice

+6 # m 2011-05-30 16:32

Corporate Media like the NYT..?
Interesting AND curious choice on your part to use as an 'example' of 'corporate media' in America today.
The NYT is a singular entity floundering in a now vastly over-deregulated American Media Reality among just a very few huge, gigantic, gargantuan, humongous, mostly conservative GLOBAL Corporate Media Empires which now own, control and exploit almost all Media Enterprises in America. With of course, the few exceptions like the NYT, which has yet to be bought and destroyed by Murdoch.
'SMALLER GOVERNMENT'.., as sold by CONservatives and Republicans, has NOTHING- absolutely NOTHING to do with getting Government off the backs of ordinary Americans and EVERYTHING to do with removing Government from the equation regarding Global Corporate want of a country where they are completely free to run amok as they just did with the entire Global Economy on the EXCLUSIVE behalf of the 2% Global Corporate Class.
GOVERNMENT is FAR MORE in the lives of ordinary Americans now than it ever was and FAR LESS capable of operating as an oversight entity on BEHALF of the American People when it comes to Regulating and Sanctioning CORPORATE ACTIVITY in America or Protecting Americans from bad products, illegal activities or the expanding, growing power and influence of GLOBAL Corporations seeking dominion over EVERYTHING..!

+2 # RSJ 2011-05-31 03:10

@ Activista: I see, so the UN approved this mission to stop Khadaffy from killing the rebels because they wanted to line the pockets of BP? I suggest you do some further thinking and research on the issue -- or do you think the rebels in Libya are all fronts for the oil companies? (BTW, Khadaffy has been cooperating with Big Oil for decades; it's how he stayed in power.)

+16 # Homer Peters 2011-05-30 04:26

Obama is the textbook example of a lesser of two evils, so unless you believe in miracles what real alternative is there?

-3 # Activista 2011-05-30 08:42

I believe that we have more choices than "lesser of two evils" ... follow Arab Spring - we need America Spring ...

+1 # RSJ 2011-05-31 03:13

lead the way, Activista. What are your practical, realistic suggestions to bring 'Arab spring' to America? (BTW, you may have noticed the grassroots protests in the Rust Belt states, or are your eyes so occluded with hatred for Obama you missed them?)

-2 # Activista 2011-05-31 07:24

"your eyes so occluded with hatred for Obama"
I do not hate Obama - Obama is a product of the system - conformist to the system - NOT agent of change. Obama is NO Gorbachev.
If Obama would fight as much for American people as he fights for Netyenahu apartheid - we could see more progress.
Obama has total of 2 vetoes - did NOT veto the tax for rich - man is a looser.

+2 # RSJ 2011-05-31 13:38

@ Activista: Obama has been fighting for Netanyahu's apartheid? Obama just proposed a two-state solution with an independent Palestine that Netanyahu vehemently opposes, along with AIPAC and the GOP.

As to your second point, Obama did not veto the two-year extension of tax cuts for the rich because a deal had been struck in the Senate: unemployment benefits would be extended and DADT would be eliminated. I think Obama got the better part of that deal. Or would you rather that millions go without unemployment and gays still be discriminated against in the military?

BTW, Activista, justout of curiosity: whose side do you 'activate' on?

+1 # Dave W. 2011-05-31 16:07

RSJ, "Obama did not veto the two-year extension of tax cuts for the rich because a deal had been struck in the Senate." lol
They struck "deals" in '01 and '03 as well. The tax cuts were SUPPOSED to end as a result of those deals. Whoops! Obama, in point of fact, had the Conservatives right where ANY old school Democrat would have wanted them. They would have been forced to deny unemployment benefits to millions of Americans, in winter, at Xmas time no less! He had them right where the hair is short and caved. It's that simple. When the "current" two years is up do you expect Conservatives to march to D.C. and happily proclaim they'll now willingly pay their fair share of taxes? I don't think so. As for DADT, support for that insidious piece of legislation was waning anyway. Yes, it may have taken longer, but it was going to die one way or another. This country, now and for the foreseeable future, in perpetual war mode, would NOT have been turning away willing "cannon fodder" for the sole crime of being Gay. So essentially Obama sold out. I'll GUARANTEE you the tax cuts don't end and that further attacks on both unemployment benefits and the imposition of repealing DADT continue for as long as the rabid right wingers can keep profiling them with their unique brand of propaganda skills. I believe Activista is a "lefty." One who feels betrayed.

+1 # RSJ 2011-06-02 15:59

@ Dave W: if Obama had allowed unemployment benefits to lapse, millions of Americans would have been kicked into deep poverty and the economy would be even worse than it is now. Plus, Obama would have been portrayed as 'playing politics' with people's lives by the MSM and the GOP, regardless of the fact the Republicans were really the ones playing politics. And what would many of the progressive commenters and trolls be saying: "How could Obama let this happen, especially at Xmas time?!"

To you, the eventual extinction of DADT may be fine, but those whose lives were directly affected felt they had waited long enough. Again, Obama and the Dems would have been bludgeoned by the left for not taking the opportunity to get rid of DADT.

I'll challenge your 'guarantee' that the tax cuts for the rich won't end in two tears. (Of course, if Obama is defeated in 2012, that will be true; but if he stays in office, and the Dems expand their majority in the Senate and make gains in the House, those tax cuts are gone in 2013.)

+13 # futhark 2011-05-30 04:59

Once again, the Party of "fiscal responsibility" is anything but...

+8 # 22dragon 2011-05-30 05:33

The cut in revenues (tax cuts) and increase in expeditures was deliberate in more than one way. (another way, the stimulus to military industrial sector and oil extraction business) The primary motivation was the neo-conservative matra, which is that slackers are getting what rightly belongs to us hard-workers. The fastest way to do that is to bankrupt the government so it cannot pay for "entitlemnts." And an Entitlement is anything I deserve and get from government, that you shouldn't get because you did not earn it. Austerity is another word for subsidies for TO BIG TO FAIL and extraction from TOO SMALL TO MATTER.

+5 # Terre 2011-05-30 20:20

I can't help but wonder when the "to small to matter" are going to wake up and start making enough noise that the "to big to fail" will realize that without us, they're going to be in serious trouble.

+10 # jpowell1116 2011-05-30 05:38

RSJ - we're already knee deep in 2 unnecessary wars. Trillions squandered. Let someone ELSE spend THEIR billions protecting Libyans. With over 1000 military bases worldwide, $1.3 combined military budget sucking the life out of the economy making defense contractors rich beyond wildest dreams of avarice, hundreds of thousands (ours and "theirs") killed worldwide, "endless war" - enough is enough.

0 # RSJ 2011-06-05 03:26

@ jpowell1116: We have a treaty with the UN to support any multi-nation UN-sanctioned military operation for humanitarian reasons. Obama would be in violation of his oath of office if he refused to honor that treaty since all treaties have the same force as the Constitution itself. I hate war, but if you have to use the military, preventing Khadaffy from slaughtering tens of thousands of Libyans is a worthwhile purpose.

+13 # boudreaux 2011-05-30 05:44

Just as CL38 said we vote a person into office that was incompetent to run this country and catered to his daddy's every order...started a fricked war basised on lies and put us into the whole situation that we are in today and now the repugs can only think of taking away from the American people to fix this problem...they are as crazy as he is....

+21 # Rick Gioia 2011-05-30 05:51

Doesn't anyone remember a central tenet of Neo-Con philosophy: "Starve The Beast"? This is merely the endgame of that insidious strategy, and the fact that Republicans are now trying their hardest to deliver the death blow to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, not to mention organized labor should come as no surprise. They are the current agents of this orchestrated and diabolical plan.

+11 # Mike K 2011-05-30 06:42

The current debt and deficit was part of the point of the tax cuts as well as refuseing the to pay for the wars. It's the starve the beast stratagy, they created the debt and deficit so that they could use it to get ride of Government programs they don't like such as medicare.

+9 # unclewags 2011-05-30 06:45

All of the above Progressive opinions are on target! Including those which express the views that both the Democrats and the Repugnantcans are "in bed" with the corporatists. Why not promote the idea of bringing our troops home from abroad, particularly Afghna-Iraq, and have their pay support the stateside economy?

+12 # psycheboat 2011-05-30 06:50

The Reverse Robin Hood (Republicans) came to town and brought havoc to the American Workers and their families by taking more from the Poor and giving it to the Rich. I am reminded of the Cain Mutiny when one realizes that there are more Crew than there are Officers. It is well beyond the time for the "Crew" to slay this Reverse Robin Hood...

+2 # Terre 2011-05-30 20:22

Love the analogy...GREAT post.

+7 # unclewags 2011-05-30 06:58

Just think of how much our military's paychecks could beef up our stateside economy. At the same time, they could continue in advanced training; of both military and civilian complexion. Their presence on U.S. soil would bolster the economy of both "base employment (jobs)" and the local retail job situation as well as the local consumer economer in general. Isn't it about time that we citizens (I'm an 82 y/o Korean War vet)started pushing for recall of our troops from afar? God bless the America that has been the envy of the world for the first 60 years of my bountifully blessed life.

+17 # Walt 2011-05-30 07:11

Bush took office with a budget surplus left by Clinton, and then took the country down the path to massive debt with tax cuts for the rich and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what about the invasion of Iraq based on lies? How have Americans let this slide by?? Not even an investigation?? Thousands of deaths and a trillion dollar deficit isn't enough for an investigation??

-10 # forparity 2011-05-30 10:24

Look, 8 years is a long time, and there is much on the table, but:

Bush took office with the US reeling from the collapse of the dot/com (Enron) bubble, 9 mo's earlier, March of 2000. Every leading economic indicator had long turned on a dime; the country was going into recession.

All of the projected continued growth in tax revenue (projected at bubble economy rates) was gone - overnight. It didn't matter whether or not it was Gore, or Bush - we were going to be running hundreds of billions in debt by 2003.

The economic effects (and nat't sec costs) of 9/11 didn't help a bit either.

The top end of the Bush tax stimulus were too much - and do add up, but not nearly as much as the middle and lower end tax cuts.

Ah, the invasion of Afghanistan?? Invasion - The initial was simply to attempt to get AlQaeda and the Taliban out - then to restore the country back to it's once proud and rightful people.

Iraq? You quote Clinton in a positive sense then seem to forget that Clinton was right out front defending Bush (long after the Iraq war began) on the fact that the intel Bush inherited from Clinton and the views of Saddam's threat - were all the same.

There will always be a great debate on what would have been the best way to deal with a madman - who'd already caused close to 2 million deaths.

+4 # Activista 2011-05-30 19:05

"what would have been the best way to deal with a madman - who'd already caused close to 2 million deaths"
You mean Sadam-Reagan attack on Iran in 80's?
I would put madman Reagan MORE responsible - plus genocide in Guatemala - add another hundred thousands - mostly ingenious women ... to the Reagan score.
google Reagan Gutemala Genocide

-2 # forparity 2011-06-01 15:39

In case you come back - whew?

Saddam invaded Iran during the last year of the Carter admin. - during the height of Iranian/US hostage situation - supposedly with Carter's approval.

Remember?

By the way, the Soviet Imperialist Empire invaded Afghanistan during the Carter era - about a year after Carter authorized the covert funding to the rebels there.

Reagan's little game in the Iran/Iraq war was just meddling. - Neither Carter nor Reagan wanted Iran to come out ahead in that conflict. Reagan got the stalemate we wanted.

You want to talk about a genocide - how about what happened in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, and finally just as Clinton was promising "Never Again" to the Rwandans, that the most deadly conflict since the end of WWII, the DR Congo conflict had erupted next door. .

Find me a single national journalist - anchor - etc., who has ever asked Bill Clinton about what in the world "never again," actually meant? Heck, they don't even ask him about the economic crash he left Bush.

Or about what Clinton's energy Sec. Bill Richardson meant when he suggested that Clinton's Nato experience in Kosovo (without the wanted UN resolution) was about America's energy security (hint: Caspian Sea region)

+4 # Terre 2011-05-30 20:33

Bush was an adult and President of the US. He had a choice and he chose to disregard warnings about Al Quaida. I guess he expected an engraved invitation. Bin Laden was cornered at Tora Bora and Bush blew it.
Sadamm was a madman, but to take our eye off Bin Laden was a stupid blunder on Bush's part. Iraq was not a war of necessity, it was was a war started because of a personal motive.

+2 # True Progressive 2011-05-31 12:06

"raq? You quote Clinton in a positive sense then seem to forget that Clinton was right out front defending Bush (long after the Iraq war began) on the fact that the intel Bush inherited from Clinton and the views of Saddam's threat - were all the same."

forparity has got to be a Rethug tea bagger troll. The BIG LIE is that Bush was fed faulty intelligence in the run up to his Iraq invasion. No matter how much it scares forparity and other tea baggers to accept this, the truth is that Bush and his neocon gang always intended to invade Iraq to seize its oil. Bush seized on the 9/11 attacks, then cherry picked old intel, reworked current intel, then outright lied to America and the world that Saddam was an immediate threat. We also did the Iraqis no favor by invading and ousting Saddam. He may have been a brutal dictator (for a while he was America's brutal dictator ally), but while he ruled, the electricity and water worked, people could walk the streets without fear of instant annihilation, and women could not only wear what they wanted in public, they could participate and advance in Iraqi society.

-2 # forparity 2011-06-01 17:25

of course, other than it's obvious that you're not a progressive, in any sense of the word - and certainly seem not to hold any humanitarian concerns, let me ask you one question:.. then why did Bush not seize the Iraqi Oil??

I might note that you seem to have no concept of how brutal Saddam and his regime were to human beings. The people could not walk the streets without fear of instant annihilation - or rape - or torture. Heck, the Olympic team couldn't even loose without fear of being caged, tortured, disemboweled, or fed to lions for the amusement of Saddam's sons.

You might have forgot that it was JFK who helped put the Baath Party in power - liked them better than the dirty commies.

+1 # SteveM 2011-06-03 12:05

Quoting

Iraq? You quote Clinton in a positive sense then seem to forget that Clinton was right out front defending Bush (long after the Iraq war began) on the fact that the intel Bush inherited from Clinton and the views of Saddam's threat - were all the same.

There will always be a great debate on what would have been the best way to deal with a madman - who'd already caused close to 2 million deaths.

Of course, there's that little problem about the Bush 43 group, the Lie Factory --officially known in the Bush 43 Oval Office as Dick Cheney's "Office of Special Plans"-- that did more-than-a-little-bit to gin up that immoral Iraq war, against a nation that had NOTHING to do with the dastardly 9/11/2001 crimes. It was the OSP's false info that prompted then-Sen. Clinton, among others, to vote for military action against Iraq.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory

+14 # Realist 2011-05-30 07:19

To restore our government to be of the eople, by the people and for the people, we must eliminate the nedd for money to compaign. this money is needed mainly for TV time. Eliminate the need for buying TV time, and you eliminate the buying of congress. Either make TV time free for all national candidates, or make it illegal to advertise candidates on TV. The latter was done in England. The TVChannels belong to WE,THE PEOPLE not to the networks who are licensed by the FCC. Their licences should require giving equal time to all national candidates.

0 # unclewags 2011-05-30 07:21

There was a time when one could have, and should have, argued that a wage earner, who has in fact been a contributing producer of the wealth accruing to the investor class ought, in justice, to be entitled to some pro-rata share in the enterprise's success. That has become a "pipe dream" now that corporations have moved offshore; thanks to Bill "open zipper" Clinton's NAFTA Treaty give-away. As well as, the absence of tarrifs on imports from other countries; where the producing factories are American owned. Our nation needs to renew and rebuild its' own competing on-shore manufacturing enterprises.
How about employee share-ownerhip startups? One must be a share owner to qualify for employment; whether on the wage earner or management level.

+1 # Terre 2011-05-30 20:35

NAFTA was Bush 41's baby.

+8 # rm 2011-05-30 07:38

It is easy (and true) to blame Bush for the mess the US is in. But really, it all goes back to the post WW II era when the US became a fully fledged empire. We are now ruled by the military-industrial-banking complex, and it's mission is to bleed the people of the US dry in its pursuit of conquest all over the world.

Bush, Obama, Reagan -- all of them -- are subject to the powers of the Pentagon. Johnson had to give up on a second term because he could not longer take orders from the Pentagon. If Obama had any decency as a human being and politician, he would resign or not run and make very public that he was no longer willing to take the Pentagon's orders. The power of the Pentagon cannot be challenged. It's internal police forces are just as powerful as its external ones. It can only be defeated by non-cooperation, civil disobedience, and passive resistance. The Pentagon is run by its weapons producers and some imperialist ideologues. They simply don't care at all about America or Americans. They love power and war. That's all. They are psychopaths and cannot change.

-1 # Activista 2011-05-30 09:20

Neo-liberals morphed into Neo-Cons and Neo-Cons into Neo-Liberals. The foreign policies did NOT change - defense/war department, NSA, FBI budget are growing - who is NOT with US is a terrorist.
AIPAC/money rule.
Check AlJazeera.net - 313 children died in the Israeli shelling of Gaza in December 2008-July 2009

+2 # CL38 2011-05-31 05:28

They also orchestrated getting rid of JFK.

0 # RSJ 2011-06-05 03:40

@ rm: You wrote:

(quote)If Obama had any decency as a human being and politician, he would resign or not run and make very public that he was no longer willing to take the Pentagon's orders. The power of the Pentagon cannot be challenged. It's internal police forces are just as powerful as its external ones. It can only be defeated by non-cooperation, civil disobedience, and passive resistance. The Pentagon is run by its weapons producers and some imperialist ideologues. They simply don't care at all about America or Americans. They love power and war. That's all. They are psychopaths and cannot change.

You're right about the psychopathology of the MIC but think about this: If Obama did as you suggest -- resign and call out the MIC -- what do you think the MSM, the same MSM whose owners are either directly or indirectly making money from the MIC, would report? Do you think Obama would even be accurately quoted, or simply dismissed as a nutcase? Perhaps they'd even fabricate a story that he retired due to mental illness without comment and the public would never know the truth. Obama would then simply be replaced by someone who would do the MIC's bidding -- how would that improve the situation? Perhaps Obama is playing the 'long game' -- unfortunately, we won't know that until he's out of office, and maybe not even then.

+14 # Eric L. 2011-05-30 07:45

There is only one solution. It stems from the desire to restore justice to the Republic. The prison camp we call Gitmo remains open for one purpose only-- the restoration of justice for the United States. Corporate greed has looted the wealth of the middle class and destroyed our democratic values. The prosecution and conviction of our corporate criminals and their underlings for their crimes would bring them to their final destination: the prison camp at Gitmo. This symbolic event would restore justice to the republic virtually 'over night'. Keep Gitmo opened to receive our corporate terrorists.

+17 # fredboy 2011-05-30 07:57

It is amazing how many can continue worshipping the Bush/Cheney team when it is obvious that they intentionally hurt the United States.

-12 # Activista 2011-05-30 09:12

... Cost of Libyan war could wipe out GOP budget cuts by September... in the $1.5 trillion deficit ...
we should take thing in proportion ..
Other day I got Democratic "propaganda" to contribute to Obama Wars/re-election.
Rank things what are mine priorities - Iran, terrorism, security .. etc. NOT War department cuts - what lobby is sending this out?
In your daily life - over 2 years - name me one FUNDAMENTAL change. We are fighting Al-Kaida - by now non-existent - killing sick Bin Ladin - PLEASE

+13 # CAProgressives 2011-05-30 09:29

America is in the full bloom of the Military/Industrial Complex takeover of our Republic about which General Eisenhower warned. The Neo-Cons who have helped orchestrate this sicking, greed induced horror show, is succeeding in finishing off our once-Democratic form of government by starving it of tax revenues owed by them to their country as investments in our infrastructure and safety nets to help all Americans live a decent life. Wake up Americans! Only you can stop the madness!

+10 # Julian Kernes 2011-05-30 09:37

I thought it was a stupid idea when Bush first suggested tax cuts and Republican controlled Congress went with it without a mention that we were spending billions and trillions of dollars with Bush requesting a number of Emergency Supplemental Funding approvals off the regular budget to fight two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and thinking about starting a third war with Iran with no end to any war in sight. ...and we are suppose to believe the debt was the fault of the Democratic Congressional majority even though they were not a filibuster proof majority.

+5 # PIPES 2011-05-30 11:38

The main problem we have is that we have let a small group of people to hi-jack the greatest system of government. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves. George Washington set the standard by not being named King or President for life. he knew that to make sure there is governemnt by the people you had to have the people serving a term or two then the &*^% HOME. Until we get all of those who have been in office more then one term out of office we will keep on having more of same crap.

What I see here is people pointing the finger of blame at everyone but themselves

-2 # Activista 2011-05-30 12:32

Take a look at Obama cabinet - name ONE that is close to Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, should hire Joseph Stiglitz instead of Geithner.
Why? Who rules America?

-10 # forparity 2011-05-30 15:32

Who rules America?

The national mainstream media, who could give a s---t whether the administration - congress is progressive, liberal or Blue Dog, as long as it is the Democrat Party. All that matters to the media - is winning the next election for the Democrats.

+4 # RSJ 2011-05-31 03:31

@ for parity: Would that be the national pro-Democrat MSM as in the NY Times who supported Bush's Iraq invasion by letting Judith Miller put 'anonymously sourced' stories from Bush aides on the front page, edited Junior's words so he didn't sound so stupid, and refrained from printing information regarding illegal wiretapping so that it wouldn't affect the results of the 2004 election?

Or would it be the Washington Post who editorially has strongly supported the pro-corporate Republican agenda for over two decades?

Would this be the Democrat-friendly MSM that followed Fox's lead in 2000 by declaring Bush the winner in Florida, even though ABC, based on previously reliable exit polling, had called the state for Gore? For the first time in a presidential election, the exit polls were ignored in favor of the fantasies emanating from the Bush campaign.

You no doubt believe that right-wing saw that most reporters are liberals. That may be true, but it's the editors and publishers and program directors that decide what is printed in the paper or goes on the air, and they are all, nearly without exception, conservative.

-1 # forparity 2011-06-01 11:58

Wow - Well, everyone believed what the Bush admin was telling us - because all those in the Clinton administration was backing it up. FTR. President Clinton and folks, were still coming out in the summer of 2003 defending Bush on the intelligence. You see, you may have missed that because those same media sources didn't want you to know that.

My recollection is that the NYT's broke the story on the NSA wiretapping - going against the request of the WH to hold off. FTR, national polls showed broad majority support for the NSA wiretapping effort, and congress was quick to make it legal - though it became much less effective after those at risk of being caught via the program, found out about it.

How'd the media do with exposing the Clinton/Gore extraordinary rendition program? Or, as Gore was quoted as saying in that high level meeting, "of course it's against international law - go get their asses."

The consensus of opinion is that the media had long been calling elections and that it was a bad practice. The R's argue that in FL - the calling of the election kept Bush voters in the heavily Republican Western panhandle area of FL (which is in a different time zone) away from voting in the last hour - as they thought it was a done deal. i.e., cost Bush more votes than Gore. Seems logical.

+1 # RSJ 2011-06-03 02:35

@ forparity: All what people in the Clinton admin were backing up Bush's invasion of Iraq? Be specific.

Your recollection is wrong. The NY Times sat on the wiretap story for a year, publishing it only after Bush was reelected. Read on:

The Scoop That Got Spiked
Times delay on wiretap story leaves questions unanswered
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2798

To quote from a NYT piece on the publishing of Bush's illegal wiretap operation:

"The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

Clinton and Gore only had an extraordinary rendition team in the delusional minds of far-right bloggers.

The 'consensus of opinion' is that exit polling worked fine until the 2000 election.

-4 # forparity 2011-06-01 12:15

In the national media - no .. the editors (there are many at each outlet, print and TV - network and cable) are almost entirely liberal to progressive. And few would ever vote for a Republican. Needless to say, there is that lone wolf out there - Fox News which I'd bet is just the opposite. Good for them.

+3 # RSJ 2011-06-02 16:09

@ forparity: You obviously don't know much about the national media. The publishers and owners of print media and TV and radio networks are all GOP-leaning, including Sumner Redstone, head of CBS-parent Viacom, who supports Dems, but backed Bush in 2004 because he liked his tax cuts for the rich and media deregulation. I suggest you Google the owners of the largest media corporations and you'll find they are uniformly wealthy and conservative.

You are also wrong to say that editors and program directors are liberal -- they are hired to express the will of the ownership. I've been a news director in radio and I didn't last long because I didn't kowtow to the desires of the owner. That's a reality everyone in the US media is acutely aware of -- you, as I say, obviously don't know much about it.

I'd be interested to know where you got your so-called 'facts.'

+1 # ABen 2011-06-03 17:16

@ forparity: if you believe the drivel emanating from Fixed Noise then you probably also believe that the Earth is flat and that US astronauts didn't land on the moon. There is a difference between a True Belief and a Justified True Belief, that difference is objective fact. While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. If your TV only gets FOX, try spending more time listening to Sheppard Smith and less listening to Billo-the-Clown and Hannity (the manity). Here is an additional fact from the historical record. When Obama took office, the economy was contracting at an annual rate of roughly 6% and was losing 600k-750K jobs per month, now the economy is expanding at an annual rate of 1.5-3%. While the economy is still only staggering along, it is in much better shape than under the previous admin. Of course the Stimulus package worked, at least that part targeted at infrastructure. Outside of Shep Smith, Fixed Noise is largely spinfotainment; go back to the historical record and check your facts.

+1 # RSJ 2011-05-31 03:33

I'll name three: Obama economic advisors Elizabeth Warren, Austan Goolsbee and the recently retired Jared Bernstein.

0 # Activista 2011-05-31 08:58

Warren is positive - we will see how Obama will fight for her - or make compromise to get re-elected.
Thing that bothers me is this "spreadsheet" forty something (both democrats and republicans) that throw couple numbers into the graph - and iPods will save the USA.
Drones killing from Nevada is kosher.
Missing is environment, long term non-tangible effects, wisdom.
Stiglitz wisdom is ignored. Obama does not have depth to understand this.

+1 # Activista 2011-05-31 08:41

Obama did NOT veto the Bush tax for rich - so from on it is Bush/Obama responsibility.
One can make even MORE impressive statistics how WAR/military caused the deficit - start with Reagan.
"Winning the next election for the Democrats" by any means ..
"Donors, not voters, are more important to both parties. Maybe there is more big money to be made pushing tax cuts for the wealthy and maintaining the cash cow which is the Military Industrial Complex?"
www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/17/885180/-Deficit-Hawks-Lie,-and-Lie,-and-Lie,-and-Lie

-7 # Couriggia 2011-05-31 09:36

Duh, do you think that insane spending has anything to do with the debt? The chart means absolutely 0, that is zero!

-3 # Activista 2011-05-31 10:50

Chart is O.K. to show how much Bush "tax cut for the rich" contributed to the deficit and will contribute more in the next 2- 4 years (Now let's be honest and call them Bush/Obama tax cut).
"Donors, not voters, are more important to both parties. Maybe there is more big money to be made pushing tax cuts for the wealthy and maintaining the cash cow which is the Military Industrial Complex?"
It is interesting how many "brave" people are on Busn now (he had 80% approval after start of Iraq War ..) and O.K. with new king - Obama - that is expanding wars (Libya).

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.