RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Jonathan Cohn writes: "Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart in this article, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate."

The president responsible for the current budget deficit is George W. Bush. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
The president responsible for the current budget deficit is George W. Bush. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)

go to original article

 

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

 
+4 # DurangoKid 2011-07-26 08:22
Not only must we borrow our wage increases since 1970, we must as a society now borrow our government's budget. Qui bono?
 
 
+49 # artful 2011-07-26 08:43
The central question here, though, is that everyone knows the facts of the current mess.Why do we persist in this make believe that Obama is somehow to blame? Are we not, beyond the horrendous financial mess created by republicans, also facing an American public that has turned both extreme right wing--really fascist--and that allows and even encourages the racist elements never expunged from our national psyche?
 
 
-2 # EDTHEREDPILL 2011-07-26 10:14
Obama clings to long-discredite d neoliberal and trickle-down economic theories, ignoring how FDR showed that government spending to create jobs not only decreases unemployment and its consequent suffering, but eventually decreases the deficit. He is as much to blame as Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats who will cut everything but war spending and spending on the U.S. global Empire, and who all refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy 5% and corporations, or close tax loopholes and end offshore tax havens.

These regressives, including Obama and most Democrats, refuse to even consider the People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus(see http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:vFX8OW0S9RkJ:grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%2520CPC%2520FY2012%2520Budget.pdf+People's+Budget&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShYOg7bK7FdAqoOGfG6S89H5syDb8BtUn2ZrKcMnaMqFQbIw3ptqegIl23QHQfPDOhqIdHjrq4ZWo_j-NAyruUsXJYJ66p7It-haxUbj6ZwUpau4qMrDeOREdT8HG1_cWCBvPqr&sig=AHIEtbS1AvDNdJo1-RlIhK8CEPCe-R1A1A)
 
 
-16 # Never Again 2011-07-26 18:45
If Ontological Inertia holds true in financial politics, then why does Obama get to put the blame on Bush Jr. for the debt, but Clinton claims HE created a "surplus", which was actually the result of Bush Sr.'s programs, PLUS Clinton's CRA(P) and NAFTA were to blame for America's economic hemorrhage...Wh en will someone point that out?
Or that Bush had a "wasteful" $50 inauguration, but Obama's was TRIPLE that, and noone let out a peep?
 
 
-6 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2011-07-29 04:49
[quote name="Never Again"]If Ontological Inertia holds true in financial politics, then why does Obama get to put the blame on Bush Jr. for the debt, but Clinton claims HE created a "surplus", which was actually the result of Bush Sr.'s programs, PLUS Clinton's CRA(P) and NAFTA were to blame for America's economic hemorrhage...Wh en will someone point that out?
Or that Bush had a "wasteful" $50 inauguration, but Obama's was TRIPLE that, and noone let out a peep?[/

YOU LIE!!!!
 
 
+25 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-07-26 09:10
VOTER'S LAMENT - second edition

Once 'twas George and Dickie's time,
Now Oh Bomb Ah's next in line.
Endless warfare is o.k.,
'Cause in fact, they make it pay.

Villainaires, they call the shots,
As Americans get the trots,
Clearly paying through the nose,
While the deficit grows and grows.

And villainaires, they have their way,
While Americans pay and pay.
Better ways to kill and spy,
On Americans as we try...

To put an end to costly war,
The world's economy to restore.
We're surveilled and spied upon,
As their spin goes on and on.

Medicaid and Medicare, and
Social Security's not warfare.
So they'll cut it and not restore,
Tax on wealthy, like before.

For. indeed Greed is their game,
Power is their middle name.
And the devil has his way,
'Til we the sheeple revolt some day.
 
 
+3 # lark3650 2011-07-27 12:00
Smarts and poetic talent. :O)
 
 
-6 # NeoGeo 2011-07-26 09:21
Jeez, hate to say it but what happened to the numbers for the Obama EXTENSION of the Bush Tax Cuts for the already wealthy? Remember, Senate Democrats led by Max Baucus pushed that terrible package through and Obama signed it into law.

It's one thing to continually blame Republicans for all the stuff they rightfully should be blamed for. But it's another entirely to give the Dems a free pass. The Dems voted for the Bush tax cuts when they went through initially, they voted for them again when Obama took office, they voted for the wars and they continue to expand those wars under Obomber...

So how's about some objectivity here instead of Demo party baloney?
 
 
+57 # AndreM5 2011-07-26 09:49
Bush's cuts for the wealthy were for 9 years. O'Bama stupidly agreed to extend them for 2 years. Bush still wins the deficit game by a huge margin.
 
 
-36 # for parity 2011-07-26 10:08
The Bush tax cuts were for everybody, including the wealthy, for 9 years.

It's also interesting to note that following the 2003 implementation of the tax stimulus plan, that federal tax revenue soared some 44 % thru the end of 2007. When the economy crashed again, as it did just before Bush came in, tax revenue once again, fell thru the floor - driving deficits up again.

Note: I said "interesting"
 
 
+14 # billy bob 2011-07-26 11:49
I knew you'd start again like nothing was said before.

Could you be a little more specific about the "crash" that happened before bush took office?
 
 
+3 # for parity 2011-07-26 12:25
You mean the $10 Trillion crash - the Enron bubble crash? The crash which was associated with an immediate reversal of every leading economic indicator, which had not already turned on it's head?

You mean the crash which resulted in the economic reversal which caused an almost immediate reversal from budget surpluses to huge deficits?

That one?

Let's see, Dean Baker summed it up this way in March of 2001, looking back:

"The nation's political leaders [during the bubble years] chose to ignore the stock market bubble . . . As a result, millions of families have seen their dreams of a secure retirement or their children's college education vanish with the stock market bubble. The level of negligence of the nation's political leaders in ignoring the stock bubble exceeds anything since the days of Herbert Hoover."

That one?
 
 
+8 # billy bob 2011-07-27 07:28
As I remember it, didn't that have something to do with conservatives taking people's retirment savings and playing with them on Wall Street?
 
 
-10 # for parity 2011-07-27 09:55
Seems to me that about every day or so, we hear - from the Dems and the liberal mainstream media about how warm and fuzzy those years (late 90's) of irrational exuberance and corporate fraud were.

Also seems to me that many of those folks were dear friends to all, and especially to Bill Clinton.

It was what it was.
 
 
+10 # billy bob 2011-07-27 07:39
While we're at it, are you suggesting that bush "inherited" an environment of deregulation and that he was against the whole repuglican philosophy of deregulation? Did bush, himself, respond in 2001, when he "inherited" Enron, by increasing government regulation?

Are you against deregulation? Do you think there should be more government regulations on big business?

As I recall 2001 was not before bush took office. If "that one" is refering to Enron, then bush didn't "inherit" it. One of his best friends got caught doing the same thing his brother did in the 80's. Remember "that one" - the "lost" bush brother?
 
 
-10 # for parity 2011-07-27 09:59
Enron thrived during the Clinton years- and plenty of that was because of the special relationship between Ken Lay and Clinton, as well as between Clinton's Commerce department and Enron.

Bush came in - the economic bubble had crashed - Clinton's old pals petitioned the Bush admin. to help Enron, Bush refused and Enron - like thousands of other companies, collapsed.

And who can't stay on topic? LOL

There's good regulations and bad regulations. The Clinton/Summers /Geithner/Rubin /Gramm deregulation was pretty bad. The HUD regulations which created the housing bubble that led to the next crisis, was even worse - in my view.
 
 
+9 # billy bob 2011-07-27 12:26
Are you aware that "kenny boy" had a special relationship with bush?
 
 
+9 # billy bob 2011-07-27 12:31
You don't think the housing bubble had a liitle bit to do with deregulation as well?
 
 
-8 # Never Again 2011-07-27 16:43
Actually, Bush DID try to push for more regulations on Freddy and Fanny Mae, but he was denounced as "anti-poor", and Congress SOUNDLY shut him down.

You remember Clinton's "Everyone Deserves A Home, Even If They Can't Afford It?" SOMEONE always pays, and in this case, EVERYBODY pays!

Fanny and Freddy can just laugh all the way to the bank-bailout!
 
 
+6 # AndreM5 2011-07-28 07:20
Pardon me, but your revision of history is silly. Bush used the mid-terms in 2002 to push his "ownership society," a central piece of which was ridiculously easy credit enforced by strong-arming Fanny and Freddy into buying sub-standard loans.

You do a wonder Kabuki dance, spinning great 360s.
 
 
-4 # for parity 2011-07-28 14:43
Well, I had a bit of a problem with what Bush was doing with that, as well - even though it paled in comparison to that which created the bulk of the problem:

This . . .
Oct. 2000 - HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES
http://archives.hud.gov/news/2000/pr00-317.html

. . and the orders, in the late 90's to lower lending requirements of poor minorities to linoleum level.

Bush's effort was to provide a subsidy for the down payment to poor minorities who could qualify for more conventional loan.

Bush was, seeking major reforms to tighten up what Fannie and Freddie had created at the orders of Andrew Cuomo's HUD, earlier on.
 
 
+5 # billy bob 2011-07-27 07:43
So, NO, I don't think bush "inherited" the Enron scandall, considering that the entire philosophy that led to that scandal was one espoused by him and everyone in his administration, and continues to be, to this day by every repugnican I can think of on the national scale.

If the point of your comment was to underline how President Clinton should never have caved in so much to repugnican pressure and should have actually represented the liberal values of the people who elected him, then I AGREE COMPLETELY.
 
 
-7 # for parity 2011-07-27 13:37
Wasn't expressing my opinion, or my wants, so much as expressing the facts of the matter. One can't demand change if they don't understand what is going on. cheers
 
 
-9 # for parity 2011-07-27 13:57
Unbelievable how biased - or is it something else - that you are. Sad.

I don't remember anyone from the Republican side of the isle forcing Ron Brown to include Enron on all of those trade missions. I don't remember anyone forcing Bill Clinton to publicly announce what a wonderful civil servant Ken Lay was. I don't remember anyone forcing Bill Clinton to play golf with Ken Lay. Don't remember anyone forcing the Clinton admin to dole out the guaranteed US backed loans.

PBS Frontline interview - May 22, 2001, interview. "We had a lot of access in the Clinton administration, " Ken Lay.

And once again, according to your rules, Obama didn't inherit an economic crisis, either. Notably since he was a big fan of the HUD regulations which created the entire mess, in the first place.

Reagan didn't inherit a crisis. Bush didn't inherit a crisis. etc.

Grow up.

We'll see how Obama does with his.
 
 
0 # X Dane 2011-07-31 22:32
for parity, you are all so taken with bush, it is sickening, particularly when you hear. "There were no attacks during bush' time in office"
What was 9-11?? The entire month of August he was vacationing on his ranch, while CIA was warning of something big brewing. He was told that Al Quida was planning to attack inside USA!!!! George Tennet warned thet their "HAIR WAS ON FIRE. That is to be rather upset.

And when a CIA employee came to the ranch to warn him. His answer was: "OK YOU COVERED YOUR ASS YOU CAN GO NOW"

Yes, He really worked hard at protecting us??....as I mentioned before republicans dont give a damn about governing
 
 
+10 # billy bob 2011-07-27 08:13
I Googled everything I could find and the only mention I could find of a $10 trillion cost to the federal budget because of bush's friends at Enron was your own comment. In fact it was the top hit for most of my search terms.

Could you point me in the right direction, so that I may relieve myself of the notion that, bush's multi-trillion dollar wars, increases in the overall military budget and tax cuts for the rich were the cause of bush's deficit?

I'm trying to understand why bush's deficit is the fault of President Clinton. It seems that the entire argument rests on the notions that:

1. Enron cost the federal budget 10 trillion dollars,

2. President Clinton was behind all the deregulation that led to the Enron scandal without repuglican support,

3. bush's and his crony's hands were clean,

4. and that bush's increases in the military budget, wars for personal profit, and tax cuts for other members of his class had nothing to do with it.

It also rests on the idea that this article has all of its numbers wrong.
 
 
+6 # billy bob 2011-07-27 08:20
Even if I make it as simple as possible and Google the terms: ten trillion crash, the top hit refering to your comment is... YOUR comment.

If I Google "Enron bubble crash", the top hit refering to your comment is YOUR comment.

Could you just save me some time and point to a source proving that bush's deficit was not bush's fault, but was the fault of President Clinton because Clinton was friends with "Kenny Boy", even though it was actually bush who gave him the nickname "kenny boy" and it was bush who had the special relationship with him?
 
 
-6 # for parity 2011-07-27 10:16
I never said that Bush's deficit was not Bush's deficit.

Can you not read?

I said the silly short term surpluses and projected surpluses which were expected forward, at the end of 2000 -- disappeared mostly because of the March 2000 collapse. The economy and budget shortfalls and spending during the Bush years added greatly to it.

Personally - don't see that they'd been much different had Gore or Kerry been president - Perhaps a $trillion one way or the other - but in the big picture - that's rounding, these days.

Sure hard, as always, to keep with your every changing bouncing creativity.
 
 
+7 # billy bob 2011-07-27 12:26
So you're saying that, had Gore been in office, he would have lied to the American public to get us into two wars to enrich bush's friends, and would have given away as much in tax cuts for the rich, and would have increased overall military spending as much as bush?
 
 
-3 # for parity 2011-07-28 10:18
Unbelievable, notably considering your constant rhetoric about how I supposedly change the subject.

So -- No. . You can read what I said. It was not complicated.

You don't like what you read about the Bush stimulus bill and current analysis of it, so you shift it to your lack of understanding of the bubble collapse (or was it, that you don't remember recent history - by choice?). Then you shift it to your lack of understanding about one of the many players, Enron. Then, when you don't like the way that's going, you shift it to military spending on wars.

Gee - seem to remember this pattern with you.
 
 
+8 # rf 2011-07-27 04:22
The housing bubble was left to grow so that Bush would have a good economy and look good...otherwis e he screwed the pooch and the economy would have been twice as bad his entire administration.
 
 
-3 # for parity 2011-07-27 17:59
There is a lot of truth in that. Let me say that I shared a thought here, with someone of note.

Comparing what the general mood must have been like during the last couple of years in the Clinton era, to the last couple of years in the Bush era - Both would have been well aware that they were nearing the end of a very dangerous econ bubble. Both would know that the sooner the darn thing ended/crashed, the less damage/chaos would result.

So I offered-because of the way it is, the want for both to want to get to the end of their reign with the economy sill purring along (revenues rising-all that) there's just no way that either would have been able to pull the plug.

It's sort of sad, as in both cases, the darn bubbles crashed pretty much in their last year +/- . And in both, great carnage pursued. Worse in the second instance, of course. That is partly because we never recovered from the first one.

The bad news - this one will be worse yet. It's just piling on, while the can is being kicked down the road.

And, to your last point. Sure - Had Clinton not had the Dot.com (Enron) bubble, and Bush not the housing bubble - neither would have had much of an economy.

Of course, in both cases that would have been better - we could have talked re-tooling, without the need for crisis management.
 
 
0 # X Dane 2011-07-31 21:35
The bush tax cuts enriched the wealthy and corporations, while the middle class wages flatlined, they are still flatlined.

Republicans can't govern. They don't give a DAMN about people, just their rich benefactors. You are sickening Traitors
 
 
+29 # Carlosmik 2011-07-26 09:52
NeoGeo, you're right but for the wrong reasons. Obama and the Dems share some of the blame, mainly because they have no spine. They didn't fight Bush or Republican policies because they were unwilling to take political risks.
 
 
-10 # NeoGeo 2011-07-26 10:13
Carlos - would that be "political risks" like the promised public option? How about the political risks of Somalia, Yemen, Libya and the incessant pounding of drums to go to war with Iran? These are NOT Bush policies, these are Obama's policies. How about a double digit increase in military spending while the rest of the budget gets cut?

I don't mind seeing George W. Bush's disgraceful legacy revisited, but he's been out of office for 3 years now. Isn't it time to start putting the blame where it belongs? Remember, Dems held their largest majority in the Senate in decades, a huge majority in the House and Obama in the Oval Office and, quite frankly, they blew it. All of us "hope and change" voters are wondering what happened to that catchy little phrase. I thought it was a campaign promise, but change hasn't happened and hope seems equally vacant. Bush didn't stuff through that disgusting health care bill, Demos did -- and then Obama took a sh*t sandwich and tried to tell us it was a porterhouse steak...he's still trying. Probably the single greatest negative for the Dems since Obama took office and it handily lost them their House majority and almost lost the Senate one, too.

Just a little too much unsubstantiated hyperbole in this article for me. Like this line, for instance: "It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office."
 
 
+1 # Dice 2011-07-27 09:40
The "catchy little phrase" stayed on the bumper sticker. He never intended to change anything. Obama is in the back pocket of big business just like Bush was...Just different pockets.
 
 
+3 # rf 2011-07-27 04:23
Maybe because they are mostly rich pricks!
 
 
+27 # Td1235 2011-07-26 10:26
Actually, the tax cut extension was just another example of Democrats caving in to Republican extortion.
 
 
-2 # for parity 2011-07-28 10:20
I'm sorry. Wasn't both chambers of Congress and the White House controlled by Democrats at the time?
 
 
+6 # Walhalla 2011-07-26 10:27
Quoting NeoGeo:
Jeez, hate to say it but what happened to the numbers for the Obama EXTENSION of the Bush Tax Cuts for the already wealthy? Remember, Senate Democrats led by Max Baucus pushed that terrible package through and Obama signed it into law.

It's one thing to continually blame Republicans for all the stuff they rightfully should be blamed for. But it's another entirely to give the Dems a free pass. The Dems voted for the Bush tax cuts when they went through initially, they voted for them again when Obama took office, they voted for the wars and they continue to expand those wars under Obomber...

So how's about some objectivity here instead of Demo party baloney?

The dems got Don't ask, don't tell" repealed and a renewal of the nuclear arms treaty with Russia, plus redux of ss tax for the gainfully employed ...
 
 
+13 # d julien 2011-07-26 12:09
If it weren't for the GOP abuse of the filibuster, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy would have expired in 2010. That's what Obama and the majority of Dems wanted to do. Unfortunately, the undemocratic abuse of the filibuster gives a small extremist minority(the GOP) veto power over everything....
 
 
0 # rf 2011-07-27 04:26
Letting the reps. actually get the hell up there and filibuster would have called the Rep. bluff. Instead the DEms. only made a Dem. do it for the tax cuts. Dems are creeps...we need a third party now! (or as Nader says...we could use a second party)
 
 
+3 # Leah stark 2011-07-28 09:00
@NEOGEO.You know as well as we all do that House Republicans wouldn't extend unemployment benefits if Obama would have ended their tax welfare extensions.How do people like you expect a government to run a country when the previous government ran up a bill,Put us in debt, bankrupted our country basically and not be allowed to borrow more to get us out of this mess.Please tell me your solution.
 
 
0 # X Dane 2011-07-31 21:18
Neo Geo, they voted for them in order to extend the unemployment pay for the long time unemplyed at Christmas, when the republicans.... again....were taking hostages......T his time... the hostage was our conomy, and the world economy. You are graduating from poor unemployed people........ DISGUSTING.
 
 
+32 # Barbara K 2011-07-26 09:32
I'm wondering if the Republibaggers really want to go down in history on the list of the Congresspeople who destroyed America's economy. Do they really want to be remembered for that? So far, they have nothing good to be remembered for. Haven't put people first for anything.
 
 
+16 # kb5zcs 2011-07-26 11:48
the republicans havent cause any job at all.
 
 
-23 # forparity 2011-07-26 09:44
" . . presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy."

Hmm-I think that most folks, inc liberal Brookings (recently) analyized this and says that 82% of the tax cuts did not go to the very very wealthy(above $250K).

Not defending the final score of the Bush era here - I assure all - but, any economist will tell you that it mattered not, whether Gore or Bush was president in 2001 - all of the nice budget surplues we were experiencing at the time, as well as all of the projected budget surpluses (that hysterical $5.6 Trillion paper projection) were to quickly turn to huge deficits within a couple of years - by far, the reason being the collapse of the Dot.Com bubble (Enron bubble) in March, 2000 and the fallout from it. 9/11 didn't help much either.

Who knows what Gore might have done in 2001 - hearing the December 2000 (after the campaign) calls from both sides on how to stimulate the economy which was going into free fall? Daschle, Liebermann and Kucinich pusing for the tax rebates; Corzine pushing for capital gains and dividend tax relief, etc.

There is a conversation to have on how incoming administrations deal with the crisis they inherit. Reagan, Bush and Obama are the only three in recent decades that inherited crisis.

We'll see how Obama does now.
 
 
+23 # ForestHome 2011-07-26 11:10
Quoting forparity:
"

Hmm-I think that most folks, inc liberal Brookings (recently) analyized this and says that 82% of the tax cuts did not go to the very very wealthy(above $250K).



I don't know who the "most folks" you are refering to but the Brookings institute's analysis did indeed inform us the Bush tax cuts went to the wealthy. In fact 65% went to the top 20%. The top 1% (those making $620k/year) received 35% of the cuts

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/the_bush_tax_cuts_disproportionately_benefitted_the_wealthy/
 
 
+14 # billy bob 2011-07-26 11:52
The trouble is that fortheteaparty doesn't bother to read the statistics he quotes before he quotes them. It's part of his m.o.
 
 
-15 # for parity 2011-07-26 12:35
Tax Policy Center - division of Brookings. July 2010 report.

Estimated the 10-yr cost of extending Bush tax cuts (no stimulus effect considered) being $3.675 Trillion.

Then, using the Treasury's est that the 10 yr revenue gain from not extending the tax cuts to those earning over $250K (for individuals, $200K) to be $679 billion.

Math - about $3 trillion then is not associated with the tax cuts which Obama wanted then (still does) to not extend; or, 82% of the total.

Seems to be about the same way it was always scored.

The tiny effect of canceling the corporate jet tax break which was in Obama's 2009 Stimulus Bill probably won't affect this calculation.
 
 
-11 # for parity 2011-07-26 12:42
Sorry - here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=2785

PS I'm waiting to see if I responded in the correct place a moment back??
 
 
+6 # ForestHome 2011-07-26 17:51
I followed your link and did a little more digging on the site and found you are making a serious mathematical error.

Just as we all know....

The Bush tax cuts went to the Wealthy.

Here is the Pie chart from the Brookings institute Tax policy center

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/cuts0106.cfm
 
 
-6 # for parity 2011-07-26 18:44
I made no mistake. I was very clear. You are twisting.

It's right there on the Urban Institute - Tax Policy Center page, which I linked. I was specific in my language. This the conversation which has been in front of the American people, compliments of President Obama - which he has been specific on since before his election.

You are citing a different class. That's fine, if you wish to speak of something different than what the heat of the national discussion has been. However, I made no mistake, and your comment was insulting -"as any intelligent persons would know."

For the record - for goodness knows how many times - I'm on record here in my view - for which I have been highly activist on - that the top tax cuts, which we (Obama) have been speaking of - I've supported reversing since at least 2004, or so.

So please learn how to conduct a civil conversion - please.
 
 
+1 # billy bob 2011-07-27 07:45
Am I mistaken, or are YOU accusing someone ELSE of changing the subject?!?!

The irony is too rich!!!
 
 
-2 # for parity 2011-07-27 14:03
Well, that post was rejected.

Once again - Forest Home changed the parameters.

I'm working with the issue that the President and the national media has kept in front of the audience for the past couple of years - nonstop.

It's on the table today - the Pres. mentions it, in his daily blame game, almost every day (or someone else does.) The national media directs their questions in the same manner.

On the table is overturning, or not extending, that portion of the Bush stimulus bill -- or more correctly putting it, changing the tax code law - such that the income tax rate of those making over $200K ($250K for married couples) is raised.

When the entire world here talks about how much revenue that is worth over ten years - that is the discussion.

Forrest changed the subject - to a much much broader category. He could have begun with, "OK - I get that, but how do you feel about a broader, or a different measure?"

That is - if one wants to debate. He'd got the buzzer in a debate. They'd thrown you out the door.
 
 
+9 # kernel85 2011-07-26 18:28
I realized $200 from the huge Bush tax cuts. I'll gladly give it back if the rich guys will return theirs, too.
 
 
+3 # billy bob 2011-07-27 08:29
Me too. It sounds like the rich didn't really reap much of a benefit either, according to fortheteaparty, so they won't mind returning everything bush gave them as well.
 
 
+16 # universlman 2011-07-26 11:47
Quoting forparity:
Who knows what Gore might have done


well for starters he would have avoided a useless and costly war in Iraq breaking in doors to look for invisible weapons
 
 
-16 # for parity 2011-07-26 13:00
Well, I'd lean to agree with that - but not positive. After all, Gore had long before called for sending ground troops into Iraq to put and end to the mess, that was causing so much suffering - including 500,000 children dying from the sanctions (or so said State Dept).

And, of course, Gore, Clinton and the whole Clinton team - all believed that Saddam both possessed WMD's, were trying to make more WMD's, and that they were a threat to us and to others in the region.

Clinton was perhaps one the most outspoken, in defending Bush on the WMD claims - well into the summer of 2003 and beyond - and then saying that the most important thing for Americans to do was to get behind the effort to rid the world of Saddam and to bring some form of democracy to the long suffering people of Iraq.

He made those comments on Larry King Live in July of 2003. The entire national media looked the other way, never quoting him, never questioning him again on it, and always trying to make sure that the broad public would always believe that Bush just made it all up.
 
 
+12 # futhark 2011-07-26 14:22
The assertions of Bush, Cheney, and Clinton that Saddam Hussein had WMDs were patently false. If Saddam had really had these weapons, he would have used them on the American troops during the months-long pre-invasion buildup. Bush could never have risked the failure of his enterprise and the deaths of thousands of American military personnel if they had been surprised by an attack with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. The entire American political leadership KNEW that all their hullabaloo about WMDs was pure masculine bovine excrement. Bush maybe was dumb enough to believe his own lies, but not Cheney.

All should be held legally accountable for stampeding America into a tragically wasteful and cruel military action on the basis of knowing falsehoods.
 
 
-11 # for parity 2011-07-26 14:59
Well, OK then -- using that logic, everything that is bad with the US economy is Obama's fault.

Your second assertion is absolutely out of left field - makes no sense.

"The entire American political leadership KNEW that all their hullabaloo about WMDs"

Oh boy -- Well, that is absolutely a fabrication. Some doubted, some didn't believe, but most? "all" "entire" - how can anyone have a dialog with such?

Then why was damn near all of them D and R alike, notably those on the military and intelligence committee's all coming out and insisting that Saddam had them, was attempting to make more of them, and was a threat?

Even John Edwards was out over and over again - even years later - defending that view. Sen Carl Levin, D, was on MSNBC's hardball in 2005, insisting that it was a fact that Saddam had nuclear weapons. (OK - I'll write him off to senility.)
 
 
+5 # SteveM 2011-07-27 06:53
A must-read:
The Lie Factory, by Robert Dreyfus & Jason Vest

http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/01/lie-factory
 
 
+9 # billy bob 2011-07-27 08:38
Bush said he had PROOF of w.m.d.s, not good evidence. What was his proof? I think it's interesting that so many of bush's closest allies made such a huge profit on a war that bush started based on "proof" of something non-existent.

You're right about one thing, though. Many Democrats did take bush at his word when he said he had "PROOF".

It's too bad. The left wing were to busy reading articles from the so-called left-wing media that had proof bush was lying. The left-wing knew all along that there would be no w.m.d.s and that we were being lied to all along. Too bad Democrats in office were unwilling to challenge the "proof" layed out by the president.

If only some Democrats would have had the courage to shout, "YOU LIE" at the last president, the way the entire teapublican party is now doing with this President.
 
 
+5 # universlman 2011-07-27 10:11
Quoting for parity:
Gore had long before called for sending ground troops into Iraq


Gore was in favor of the first Gulf War and opposed to the second - he did not support ground troops in the second conflict
 
 
-3 # for parity 2011-07-27 18:15
Gore had done what I said, rather late in Clinton's terms - to put it to an end. Some 500,000 Children had died because of the sanctions - and they all felt the same way that Bush would a few years later.

There's plenty of debate about Gore's speech, Feb, 12, 2002 - but that only allows for debate about the details, and perhaps who might have done it in a better manner:

And then came September 11th.
Al Gore:

"In the immediate aftermath, I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Ch ief, President George W. Bush. Tonight I reaffirm that support of the President’s conduct of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and I appreciate his candor in telling the American people that this will be a long struggle – for which the nation must be braced and its political leadership united across party lines.

Indeed, President Bush deserves tremendous credit for the way he has led the nation in a highly successful opening counter-attack in the war against terror."

[..]

"There are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq."

Bush couldn't have said it better.
 
 
+2 # universlman 2011-07-28 08:26
Quoting for parity:
"There are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq."


Parity, Gore's speech you are quoting from Feb 12, 2002 to the Council of Foreign Relations is a call for solidarity, but it identifies Iran as the more important adversary. The speech is cautionary about action in Iraq. Gore continues:

"But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition."

for the entire speech go to http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore021202.html
 
 
-4 # for parity 2011-07-28 10:31
Yes, I know where it came from.Oh, I made an error there, the bit, just before I put his name, "and then came Sep't 11th," was his lead in to the next statement."

I volunteered in my comment:

There's plenty of debate about Gore's speech, Feb, 12, 2002 -. .but that only allows for debate about the details, and perhaps who might have done it in a better manner:

Gore supported a major effort to remove Saddam from Iraq, and Gore believed that Saddam was a threat to the US, and Gore believed what his administration had passed onto the Bush admin - the WMD issue.

The war, the conduct of the war, the planning for the war - will, and always should be a vigorous and meaningful debate.

The sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children during the 90's. The left was hard at work trying to end the sanctions on Iraq. As soon as Bush looked to do something about the problem which Gore and Clinton had so boldly expressed (over and over again), suddenly the left's cry changed to, "The Sanctions are Working."

There is little high ground.

Remember - fewer people died in the 2000's, in the world, from civil conflict, genocide, and war, than in the 1990's. Perhaps there's a reason for that.
 
 
-2 # for parity 2011-07-27 18:18
Clinton, Cohen, Sen John Edwards - the list is long well into late 2003, even 2004 - the leading Democrats who understood that the "Proof" that Bush had, was the same "Proof" that they had held onto, and passed on to him:

President Clinton in July, 2003:

". .it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks. .of biological & chemical weapons. [..] And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy?

The crime here is that the entire national media acted as if Clinton, and the others never said anything - they censored their comments from the public, and they never sought to even ask them about it -- with rare exception. Such that, well as everyone here can testify - they never heard any of it.
 
 
-2 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2011-07-29 05:06
Quoting for parity:
Clinton, Cohen, Sen John Edwards - the list is long well into late 2003, even 2004 - the leading Democrats who understood that the "Proof" that Bush had, was the same "Proof" that they had held onto, and passed on to him:

President Clinton in July, 2003:

". .it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks. .of biological & chemical weapons. [..] And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy?

The crime here is that the entire national media acted as if Clinton, and the others never said anything - they censored their comments from the public, and they never sought to even ask them about it -- with rare exception. Such that, well as everyone here can testify - they never heard any of it.

YOU LIE!
 
 
0 # for parity 2011-07-29 08:58
Of course, I did not lie. You just blurt that out, and the mods allow it?

Where - how do you believe that I lied?
 
 
+23 # Lulie 2011-07-26 10:02
What "seems to get a lot of attention in the political debate" is whatever serves the interests of the corporations -- the same corporations that own the media outlets that decide what deserves attention and what doesn't. Usually, attention is paid to whatever makes the corporations money and attention is diverted from anything that shows they're already awash in money and raking in more at our expense.
 
 
+18 # Domsmobile 2011-07-26 10:04
Neogeo, The extension of the bush tax cuts were done through compromise. And the only reason for that compromise was because the little rich crybabies took over the house. And that only happened because 14 million people decided not to vote in 2010. So lets look at the larger picture, if dems kept control of the house, the bush tax cuts would have never been extended. Instead of nit picking at details, we all need to ask ourselves one general question; Whose overall policies are better for the country? Dems or GOPs. I'll stick with the dems!
 
 
-12 # Never Again 2011-07-26 18:51
Obama must be one of those little rich crybabies, then, his bailout of failing Corporations is more expensive than all other American undertakings COMBINED, even when adjusted for (out-of-control ) inflation!

- Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
- Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
- Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
- S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
- Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
- The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
- Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
- Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
- NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion--such a deal when compared to Obama's $14-TRILLION and climbing money-launderin g!
 
 
+1 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2011-07-29 05:14
Quoting Never Again:
Obama must be one of those little rich crybabies, then, his bailout of failing Corporations is more expensive than all other American undertakings COMBINED, even when adjusted for (out-of-control) inflation!

- Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
- Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
- Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
- S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
- Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
- The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
- Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
- Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
- NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion--such a deal when compared to Obama's $14-TRILLION and climbing money-laundering!


What an IDIOT! How in the heck can anybody run up a $14 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in 2 and a half years? It took the Reagan-Bush presidencies 12 YEARS to run up a $4.2 trillion dollar debt! I know, I tallied it up on the calculator. All I have to say is this;
YOU LIE!
 
 
0 # rf 2011-07-27 04:31
I'll vote third party...I don't see enough difference between the big two to slide a playing card through!
 
 
-13 # KittatinyHawk 2011-07-26 10:48
This was very poor. A fifth grader could have done this piece, guess they just want you to comment and no do something. And here you are.

Problems were long before Bush. Clinton tided up some but he taxed not the Rich...everyone , and middle class and poor felt it as did Seniors. His buds laughed all the way to the Caymans mon!
 
 
+9 # tuandon 2011-07-26 11:14
A pox on both their houses. Yes, Chimpi (sorry, George W) dug the hole. True enough. But President Cave-in and the Spineless Wimps in the House and Senate are not looking out for the little guy. Why should they? It's the rich, Wall St. and that lot who buy them. And they have made worm's meat of the rest of us.
 
 
+12 # kb5zcs 2011-07-26 11:57
Bush dug this hole for us and now we have to climb out of it,this and the wave of fear from bush is still among us.
 
 
+10 # Realist 2011-07-26 12:21
Obama could have ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and still can). He could have brought our troops home and put them to work building roads and bridges, with much smaller cost and much more value instead of destroying them in those countries. He could have added to those troops a system like the WPA of the thirties. He is a do-nothing president, who looks and sounds intelligent, but has not had a good idea since taking office. It is a shame that the Democrats don't have thguts to have a primary, so we can select a candidate for the Presidency for whom we can vote.
 
 
+7 # jon 2011-07-26 18:00
Quoting Realist:
Obama could have ended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and still can). He could have brought our troops home and put them to work building roads and bridges, with much smaller cost and much more value instead of destroying them in those countries. He could have added to those troops a system like the WPA of the thirties. He is a do-nothing president, who looks and sounds intelligent, but has not had a good idea since taking office. It is a shame that the Democrats don't have thguts to have a primary, so we can select a candidate for the Presidency for whom we can vote.



Realist, indeed! Obama campaigned on a platform to bring our troops home and no cuts to Social Security, and we get, yet another Fascist.

They are not going to be satisfied until we are ALL living as third-world slaves.
 
 
+3 # HGH 2011-07-26 12:32
" Nuff Said "
 
 
+9 # wwway 2011-07-26 19:17
Republicans have had a strategy to "starve the beast" for years. The Clinton surpluses did not make them happy and when Bush got in the chance came to break the bank once and for all. If anyone didn't have a clue what was happening then they certainly know now. When one tell you who they are, believe them! Republicans don't care about 98% of Americans.
 
 
-3 # tomo 2011-07-26 19:51
The fact Bush has invaded Iraq on lies and has smashed a country of 25 million people should not blind us to the terrible moral failures of Obama. He has continued with the same military organization, and is now doing to Afghanistan what Bush started in Iraq. Obama also endorsed an incalculable giveaway to Goldman-Sachs, Bank of America, and General Motors. Obama is immensely responsible for the current deficit and the resulting financial crisis. No one but a really craven and servile people would consider him as eligible for a second term.
 
 
+4 # VSweet 2011-07-26 21:49
Thank you, thank you! For setting the record straight with facts!

I am so tired of hearing people blame President Obama for everything! They pretend and believe these Republicans are their fairy mothers. No they are your WORSE NIGHTMARE!

Obama is not perfect, but he is certainly not the worse! The Republicans especially now Boehner is the real reason we can't come together for the best outcome for our nation. That is of course if pouting Boehner doesn't WALK OUT in NEGOTIATIONS again.
 
 
+1 # froggie 2011-07-28 02:43
Seems to me Jesus had a worthy suggestion. "Let him among you who is perfect, cast the first stone." I see lots of castigating but very little solid suggestions for solving this dismal problem. (Don't be fooled...I don't think anyone in DC is listening or gives a damn one way or another.) Politicians are in the game for $$, power and prestige. Barney Sanders is the only one in the whole bunch yhat I trust. And he's too smart to run.
 
 
0 # dboy 2011-07-29 04:40
They don't get along not because of politics but, rather because Brooks is a milquetoast weenie and intellectual inferior. When has a single one of Brooks' circuitous arguments ever made any sense???

Sorry David, it's something your mom probably should have told you a long time ago.
 
 
0 # johninnc 2011-08-05 19:05
The author is a moron. There is a saying in business that you can fix the blame or fix the problem. To say that all the problems are because of Bush and somehow we are to believe that Obama is fiscally responsible is a joke. The author somehow believes that his job is done because he convinced us that Obama is without fault is insulting to an intelligent person. How come the cost of the war in Afghanistan is in Bush's column? Yes he had some troops there, but Obama expanded it because it was the right war. The bigger question is why has Obama continued and expanded all of Bush's worst ideas and mistakes? where is the change he promised? Here is the data which is shared-Since August 2007 the National Debt has increased from $8.9 trillion to $14.6 trillion, a 64% increase in four years.
We’ve increased our cumulative expenditure on our wars of choice in the Middle East to $1.3 trillion since 2001.
Our annual military spending rose from $653 billion in 2007 to the current $966 billion, a 48% increase in four years.
Federal government transfers for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Veterans, Food Stamps, and Welfare increased from $1.7 trillion in 2007 to the current level of $2.3 trillion, a 35% increase in four years.
We have been screwed by both of these idiots.
 

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.

RSNRSN