Obama’s Vs. Bush’s Deficit In One Truly Scary Picture

Want to see something really scary?

Stop and think about this picture.  Realize that Democrats – who are and have been demagogues in every sense of the word – repeatedly positioned themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility against Bush spending.

And then the moment they get the chance – from the very first nanosecond – they blow up the budget deficit the way terrorists blew up the World Trade Center towers.

And, before anyone object to the comparison to terrorism, let me clarify myself even further.  Terrorists can only do so much damage.  What Obama did to the federal budget dwarfs anything terrorists could have done to us.  The commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in history has declared total war on fiscal responsibility.  It’s actually woefully inadequate to compare what Obama did to the budget to a mere terrorist attack.

The Heritage Foundation introduces the discussion this way:

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

Let me put it another way: Suppose I punch you in the mouth 100 times, sending you to the hospital on life support with a face that will never again be the same no matter how many reconstructive plastic surgeries you have.  Would it make you feel better if I told you that – next time around – I’d only punch you in the mouth fifty times?

The man who exploded a nation’s debt in a way never before seen in the entire history of the human  species is poising himself to take credit for his fiscal responsibility by only exploding it half as much as his initial nuclear blast.  And we’re actually supposed to be grateful for it!

It needs to be mentioned that this is just the spending Obama has proposed in the first 6 months of his term along with the forecasted trends that spending will entail.  It only stands to reason that the actual future spending will only increase, and these already truly terrifying numbers will only get worse over the next few years.  We literally aint seen nothin’ yet.

The generally reliably liberal Washington Post has said this:

President Obama’s ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes, overhaul health care and expand access to college would require massive borrowing over the next decade, leaving the nation mired far deeper in debt than the White House previously estimated, congressional budget analysts said yesterday.

In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would “not be sustainable.”

The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability.

“This clearly creates a scenario where the country’s going to go bankrupt. It’s almost that simple,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secretary. “One would hope these numbers would wake somebody up,” Gregg said.

Probably not, given that we are a ship of fools captained by the worst fool in American history.

You know what is interesting?  Look at what the Democrats said against Bush’s – now in historical context against Obama’s – incredibly tiny deficits (you DO realize that Bush’s deficits virtually amount to a rounding error compared to Obama’s massive ocean of red ink, don’t you?).  From the Left Coaster:

CBO Budget Deficit Estimates Too Low-Dems Attack Bush

After the Congressional Budget Office officially issued the staggering news of $400+ billion deficits for this year and next, the Democratic candidates on the campaign trail in unison hit Bush hard today on his fiscal mismanagement. Several even got in some good lines while doing so. […]

Those figures prompted criticism from Democrats, such as Howard Dean, who has called for a repeal of Bush’s tax cuts. “The president has not only destroyed three million jobs, he is destroying the financial future of our children with these crazy tax cuts for the top 1 percent,” the former Vermont governor said in a telephone interview.

“It’s obvious this administration doesn’t have the slightest clue about how to get this economy back on track, get Americans back to work and get our nation’s finances under control,” said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who added, “it is time to admit what millions of unemployed Americans already know – that the economic policies of George W. Bush are the worst in our nation’s history.”

Said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut: “The tide of red ink is rising higher than ever before. And the best George W. Bush can do is ask the American people to hold their breath. That’s unfair to our kids and unacceptable for our economic health.”

John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina, said the record deficits indicate it’s time to say “enough of the unaffordable tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy … and enough of pretending that deficits just don’t matter.”

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, cited the deficits as well as job losses as proof that the president’s “tax-cut economic policy is failing, it’s not helping ordinary taxpayers.”  […]

But the best line of the day came from Bob Graham.

Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, in a variation of a line from John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address, said Bush “is telling the world that Americans shall defer any price, unload any burden on our children, postpone any hardship for ourselves to give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.” […]

There are three items from the CBPP analysis that should be in the Democrats’ line of attack next year: […]

In other words, two-thirds of the $10 trillion deterioration is a direct result of actions taken by George W. Bush. […]

If the Democrats cannot win an election on those issues, then frankly the country deserves what it gets. These are George Bush’s deficits, and the voters need to be reminded of that every day between now and next November.

For the record, unemployment was 4.4% in 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and Democrats took over the House and Harry Reid and Democrats took over the Senate.  And the Dow was close to 12,000.  But, apparently, total Democrat control of the House and the Senate somehow still never translated into any kind of Democrat responsibility for the slide that only began after they took power over Congress.

Democrats – being demagogues – repeatedly blamed the deficits on the Bush tax cuts (because it enrages them that the American people should be allowed to keep more of the money that they earn).  But the reality is actually quite straightforward, as the Wall Street Journal evidences:

Tax rate reductions increase tax revenues. This truth has been proved at both state and federal levels, including by President Bush’s 2003 tax cuts on income, capital gains and dividends. Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history.

Liberals cannot even allow for the possibility that tax cuts might generate more revenue.  So – as the following New York Times article exemplifies – they must be perennially surprised when tax cuts create larger tax revenue by stimulating more investment.  It simply astonishes liberals that if government allows me to keep more of what I produce, that I might be inspired to try to produce even more.

“For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.”

It wasn’t Bush’s tax cuts that created deficits; they clearly RAISED revenues, rather than lowered them.  What created the deficits was massive spending (on 9/11, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on Katrina, on the huge Bush Medicare drug benefit, etc. etc.).


But let’s put blame where blame belongs: Presidents are responsible for deficits.  As Democrats repeatedly pointed out.  Which is why any fair-minded Democrat (as though there actually were any) should be screaming in rage at the Obama insanity.

Now we see what massive hypocrites and incompetents Democrats truly are.  They didn’t scream at Bush’s deficits because they wanted fiscal responsibility; they only demagogued an issue for rhetorical benefit.  They falsely positioned themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility – which was a joke even before Barack Obama came along and demonstrated it for the sickest and most twisted joke ever told.

As a conservative, I DO criticize the huge deficits under George Bush.  And I apply that same “fiscal responsibility” lens on Obama and see the worst economic manager in the history of the world.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to “Obama’s Vs. Bush’s Deficit In One Truly Scary Picture”

  1. Michael Eden Says:

    I didn’t want to do this in the article itself, but look at the “positive” budgets during the last two years of Clinton. It is an illusion, as an article, “The Myth of the Clinton Surplus” explains.

    Basically, Clinton recognized that the budget deficit analysis only factored in the public debt, and omitted the intergovernmental debt. If you look at the two debt-types during the Clinton years, you will notice that the public debt kept going down, but the intergovernmental debt kept going up – and thus the TOTAL deficit went up.

    “When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false–as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt–notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).” Hence you end up with a paper illusion.

    Clinton also had several advantages. 1) The Bush I administration ended with a recession, which was JUST ending immediately prior to Clinton assuming office. The economy was roaring when he took the oath of office. Contrast that with the fact that Clinton left Bush II with a recession that was well under way as Bush took the oath. 2) Clinton benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent military reduction that Bush I – who had to fight the Gulf War – could NOT benefit from. And most military experts argue that Clinton cut the defense budget far too much – which meant Bush II had to spend more to restore the defense capability. I probably don’t have to mention that the 9/11 attack, coming in the early months of the Bush presidency, also dramatically changed the defense-spending equation. 3) Clinton’s/Democrat’s handling of the country was so poor that in 1994 – the FIRST chance voters got to reject Clinton – the Republicans swept into power in an unprecedented transition. From 1994 on, Clinton was forced to “play ball” with Republican policies which DID focus on cutting the budget (please read the Contract with America that brought Republicans into power).

    In any event, the deficits that we’re seeing now under Obama is so staggering, so mind-boggling, so incomprehensible, that the human mind cannot get around the numbers.

    If you WANT to reduce the size of debt, you need to vote Obama and the Democrats out of office. It is as simple as that.

  2. Joy Says:

    You guys are so f-ed up….

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    Judging by your obvious complete lack of either intelligence or class, Joy, I can only take your accusation as a sign that I am on the righteous path.

  4. Kel Says:

    No. The 2009 budget was largely Bush spending. 1200 trillion of the spending was enacted by the previous administration. Also, Obama includes the cost of iraq war and other items which Bush sought to hide from the budget.

    So, therefore, there is something like 200 billion that is added by the Obama administration.

    You republicans really need to hold your own people to the same standard that you hold others. Until then, you have absolutely no credibility and no place to lecture liberals about fiscal responsibility.

  5. Kel Says:

    excuse me, correction 1200 billion, not trillion.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Excuse me, but you are just wrong.

    I know I’m talking to a liberal, defined as an ignorant fool who thinks he knows better.

    For one thing, there IS no $1200 trillion – at least not yet. After the hyperinflation Obama will cause us, there probably will be. But for now, the total national debt that has been accruing since FDR is not yet $12 trillion. So you might at least try to get some sort of a clue before you come here and try to correct me.

    Now let’s go through the record: Obama VOTED for the $800 billion bailout in 2008, and openly backed it on the campaign. So you’re just all twisted up into a hypocritical ball for claiming that doesn’t count on Obama. House Republicans, remember, voted the thing down. It passed on the 2nd vote with Democrats heavily outweighing Republicans. And Obama got to use HALF those funds for his own projects (more on that below). He could have given the money back, you know.

    Further, the $787 stimulus THAT OBAMA FEARMONGERED TO PASS will actually cost this country $3.27 trillion because it contains programs that will continue to need to be funded even after the stimulus funds are used up. And that isn’t even being COUNTED yet. Not one single penny of that was Bush’s. Not one.

    Then Obama passed the largest Omnibus bill ever seen in human history – complete with nearly 9,000 earmarks. Bush had nothing to do with it.

    Then there’s Obama’s federal budget: $3.6 trillion, by far and away the largest in the history of any government in the world. That isn’t Bush’s budget, Bozo.

    If that isn’t enough, Obama has abused his “half” of the $800 billion bailout to a degree that is simply shocking: we are actually now on the hook for $23.7 trillion because Obama’s Treasury “leveraged” the federal government.

    I’ll stop with a quote from the Wall Street Journal:

    Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.”

    So you are just wrong, you just live in your little bubble, you just believe all the leftwing talking points from your Koolaid sites. You’d better just go back to them and stay there where people as crazy and self-deluded as you think you make sense.

    Your last paragraph is right, even as it reveals your own blatant hypocrisy.

    I am a small government conservative. It is always my objective to get smaller government rather than larger – in diametric contrast to liberals who embrace big government.

    Liberals falsely depicted themselves as being fiscally conservative. We now see what a gigantic lie that was, given that we have spending that simply boggles the mind EVEN AS DEMOCRATS ARE DEMANDING MORE SUCH SPENDING IN HEALTH CARE AND OTHER AGENDAS.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    1200 billion = 1.2 trillion.

    Please compare that to the massive Obama spending that dwarfs anything ever seen in human history that I outlined in my previous comment.

    You had mentioned Bush keeping Iraq War funds out of the deficit. That just isn’t true: what Bush was criticized for was trying to keep his ESTIMATES of what the war WOULD cost out of the deficit; not the actual deficits as they accrued.

    A Washington Post article points this out – even as it tries to present the leftist “tilt”:
    “For years, budget analysts complained that former president George W. Bush tried to make his deficits look smaller by excluding cost estimates for the war in Iraq and domestic disasters, minimizing the cost of payments to Medicare doctors and assuming that millions more families would pay the costly alternative minimum tax. Obama has banned those techniques, the senior official said.

    As the costs actually accrued, they were tabulated. So again, you’re just wrong.

    Here’s an article that puts the sheer massiveness of Obama’s debt relative to Bush’s in perspective.

  8. Michael Eden's Mother Says:

    Now Michael, I told you to get back to your homework and stop making up silly lies on the internet. The truth is that you no zip about it and the whole thing is so complicated, hardly anyone does. Take down that silly chart you made. Put up the one you drew by hand.. the one with the unicorns.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    What do I even say to someone who tells me that “I no zip” about something? I would say it is pathetically obvious that “I know zip” about a hell of a lot more than you do.

    The chart that I included is not anything I made up. I copied it without any change from Heritage. For the record, here’s another chart from CNN that provides the exact same figures.

    So the only one who is making silly lies, and the only one who lives in a fantasy world, is you.

    It is funny that Obama’s deficit – the numbers that he is racking up in massive government spending – is so ridiculously huge you think I must be making it up. But no, idiot. The “unicorns” are all Obama’s and everyone else who voted for this disgusting joke of a president. It’s really happening.

    Btw, the “Michael Eden’s mother” thing really underscores what a truly trivial human being you are.

  10. HH Says:

    Michael Eden:
    Your articles have been very educational and eye opening for me… thank you for supporting your statements with facts and sources.

  11. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank YOU, HH.

    You have understood my core philosophy: leave behind a record by documenting the facts, and providing the evidence that what I am saying is true.

    My goal is that people like you can read my articles, and take the sources that I provide (or better ones if you can find them!), and engage your persuadable friends with the facts.

  12. Bill Niccoli Says:

    “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched.”

    Thomas Jefferson

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    Jefferson would have had fears that we are about to enter servile bondage due to our insane spending under Obama, and attacked the “weak minds” that are spending these trillions of dollars on the backs of our future offspring hundreds of years into the future.

    “I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt, and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing, by every device, the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing.”

    From a letter to Elbridge Gerry of January 26, 1799 [Edward Dumbauld, ed., Jefferson: His Political Writings, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1955, p.47]

  14. kyle Says:

    The Heritage Foundation is a well-known conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C.

    The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage’s policy study Mandate for Leadership.[1] Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is widely considered to be one of the most influential research organizations in the United States, especially during the Republican administration of President George W. Bush.[2]

    Heritage’s stated mission is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    That looks good to me. Particularly given just how right Ronald Reagan has been proven.

    When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, unemployment had risen to 11%. More businesses had failed than at any time since World War II. The picture of the economy was grim, indeed.inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

    But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

    The Reagan policies – ridiculed by the very same liberal economic theorists whose policies created the inflation to begin with – began to work. The Reagan Revolution solved problems that Jimmy Carter himself confessed he could not solved, and doubted COULD be solved. The result – from such terrible beginnings – was the 2nd largest peacetime expansion in American history. And now – to prove that there really is nothing new under the sun, liberal economic theorists are STILL ridiculing Reagan’s successful policy over twenty years after its success changed America.

    Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

    So the Heritage Foundation established its bona fides for economic wisdom.

    Too bad liberals won’t follow it, and are leading us right back to the Crisis of Jimmy Carter – times one million.

  16. Chris Ferro Says:

    Excellent work, Michael. I love it when those who disagree simply attack ad hominem. Actually, though, it’s sad that some people are so divided and emotionally invested that they can’t make objective judgements anymore. I mean, how can any reasonable person actually defend these massive deficits? Excessive debt is bad – even a child knows that. But these Obama-lovers and Bush-haters are so blinded by their emotions that they can’t see the truth anymore.

    Anyway, keep up the great work!

    Chris Ferro, Alexandria, VA

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, Chris.

    I always try to have a reason supported by facts to justify what I’m saying.

    Democrats too often begin and end with ad hominems (with Sarah Palin being the best example: they just hate her and call her stupid).

    Liberals worship big government: it is their God-substitute. And big government must spend. Hence they support big spending for their big government.

    But there is even more behind why liberals defend insane and unsustainable spending: Cloward and Piven:

    In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

    Liberals are not honest people because they do not even believe in the category of “truth” as a transcendent moral absolute. And furthermore, they are not patriots because they despise the vision of America bequeathed to us by our founding fathers, and seek instead to collapse the USA into a one-world government founded upon socialism.

  18. Freewill Says:

    Excellent rundown of the truth Michael! I don’t understand why more conservative politicians don’t take the time to do what you and I do, which is to fight the silly liberal media spin machine with facts and truth. It is certainly true that if they repeat the lies enough people begin to blindly accept them as fact. Thank you for helping to open their eyes.

    Here is some more evidence on this topic from Newsbusters and my own analysis.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: “By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. “

    Not exactly.

    After all, on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.”

    When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.

    This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

    How is this possibly something that happened before Obama “walked in the door” when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval — save Bush’s signature, of course — and the highest members of the current Administration — including the president himself!!! — supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House?

    Sadly, Obama-loving media care not to address this inconvenient truth.
    But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn’t Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure?

    And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden?

    Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later.

    Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President.

    If the Administration wants to blame lower tax receipts on a recession it inherited, and media want to echo that, fine.

    But as the fiscal 2009 budget deficit was LARGELY a function of out of control spending Obama and Company either voted for or approved, it is unconscionable the press allow it to be completely blamed on either the economy or Bush.

    Yet this is exactly what they’ve been doing.

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/28/mccain-said-blame-it-bush-when-obama-claimed-he-inherited-deficit#ixzz0epKQQRZe

    I didn’t want to take newsbusters.org word for it so I checked out their story above and found that they were absolutely correct on EVERY point. Please feel free to check the facts yourself. Not only that, Obama’s claimed in the SOTU that we HAD a one year deficit of $1 trillion when he took office in January of 2009, and then increased that figure to $1.3 billion in his lecture to the Republican caucus. From his statements, you have to assume that he was talking about 2008, because at that point the 2009 deficit was unknown. Please see the information below from the CBO and the OMB.

    Click to access 01-26-Outlook.pdf


    The actual annual deficit Obama inherited from Bush and the Democratic Congress was about $455 billion to $458 billion depending on your source CBO or OMB. Obama and the democratic congress were the ones who promptly created a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009. This is FACT.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Always happy to encounter a fellow conservative warrior. This battle is fought not with guns and tanks, but with the truth and a presentation of reality.

    I recently wrote a post about Obama’s false claim that he “inherited” a trillion-plus dollar deficit. But I’m probably like you; I gather evidence, and love to examine multiple accounts. Which is why I will save and examine your valuable links.

    The bottom line is this: DEMOCRATS were running both branches of Congress from 2007 when things were going well to the disaster of 2008. And they were also running Fannie and Freddie, which were employing Democrat policies with former Democrat people running it (into the ground). The housing mortgage collapse of 2008 had their fingerprints all over it – but the media showed how ideological and worthless they are by allowing Democrats to blame Bush without challenge.

  20. Freewill Says:

    Nice to meet you as well Michael.

    Please be sure to check out my blog


    where I have presented a good deal of evidence that the Democrats fingers were all over the housing bubble, relaxation of underwriting standards, leveraging of mortgage securities, and the ensuing financial collapse. What really gets my goat is listening to guys like Barney Frank laying the blame squarely on others while not accepting one iota of it himself. It is time for blustering fools like Frank to be exposed for their partisan spittle laden lies. Time to clean House….literally!

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    You can be sure I will, Freewill.

    We’re on the same page.

    I am a conservative in both the social and the fiscal sense. But I realize that fiscal conservatism is the path to victory.

    And revisiting what REALLY caused the 2008 economic meltdown should be a core plank of that path.

  22. Helen Mcshane Says:

    Well aren’t you a bit off your rocker — YOU THINK ! what in the heck shape would our country be in? – worse than the great depression I LIVED IT – that is what the republicans want so they can buy up everything for cents on the dollar and destroy the U.S. — then their plan to turn our country into a dictatorship would happen — the american people are smarter that you spinmasters we know what’s in the plan..

  23. Michael Eden Says:

    First, I hope you never become angry at any demagogic thing any Republican ever says about Democrats, Helen, because you are every bit as much of a hate bomb thrower as anyone.

    Second, I find it rather amazing that you base your hate-bomb on the thesis that you have somehow crawled into the Republicans’ souls to know their feelings and motives.

    Third, rather than offering any arguments, you resort to the tried-and-true principle of drive-by hate: you immediately attack me as “off my rocker” crazy, apparently because I don’t share your mind-reading talents. You certainly never bother to try to refute the factual information that I have presented in my article. But why try to think, when you can hate, right?

    Fourth, if you think that your experience going through the Great Depression gives you any unique authority, YOU’RE the one whose off YOUR rocker. Most of the oldest generation of my family went through it, and they are almost all Republicans.

    Fifth, you should realize that FDR actually prolonged the Great Depression by a whopping seven years as he failed again and again to create anything positive no matter how many buttons he pushed or levers he pulled. What finally saved us from the Great Depression was World War II, or else we might never have gotten out of it under FDR’s mismanagement.

    You should read up on the “Great myths of the Great Depression.” You should read books like The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, or books like New Deal or Raw Deal by Burton Folsom. Then you’d have something to offer besides anger and ignorance.

    And sixth, if you can’t bring yourself to learn, at least reflect upon the words of FDR’s own top man, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau:

    “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

    In April 1939, unemployment was still at 20.7%. How many years after Hoover’s administration (who was a PROGRESSIVE Republican who tried a lot of the same crap that FDR and Obama have) should he still get the blame? FDR failed, just as Sec. Morganthau said.

    You can also read some of my articles on the current situation – and what Democrats did to create it:






  24. Freewill Says:

    You tell her Michael! I’ve run into more than my fair share of Helens in life. There really isn’t any reason or coherence to their statements, and generally no proof at all. Just an ingrained hatred for conservatives that is largely based on media myth, and lack of effort to seek the truth. Your wisdom will fall on deaf ears my friend.

    I don’t suppose we should tell her what we think the endgame of liberal politicians like Obama is, lest she have a heart attack! She fears dictatorship, and yet votes for the party that will surely bring it.

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    I agree with you that my words will fall on deaf ears, Freewill. I have found that liberals live in a world of their own imagining, lacking the transcendent “God’s-eye view” which allows us to see and understand the world as it truly is.

    When I respond to these people, it is for the sake of others who might happen to come along, rather than for the liberals who have nothing to offer but their bitterness and their venom.

    It is amazing how liberals love to claim that conservatives are totalitarian, when EVERY major totalitarian movement we’ve seen has been LEFTIST. Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Who do you think would start a “National Socialist American Workers Party” today; the right or the left? I mean, come ON. And communism with all the redistributionism and the slogans such as “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”??? And again, the Soviet Union was actually “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” There’s that vile socialism again.

    Which is to say that the left murdered something like 200 million human beings in the last century, but let’s just forget about.

    Not to mention the sheer unadulterated lunacy of people who want a big giant government calling people who want a smaller, LIMITED government a “dictatorship.”

    Oh, well. The human race is something that seems guaranteed to have nuts in every jar.

  26. Spunk Says:

    Strange place, this.

  27. Michael Eden Says:

    “Hope” you like your “change.”

  28. Wm V Yar Says:

    In light of the recent announcement that the current administration is leaning towards “Stimulus II: The Final Solution” are there numbers available yet that would amend the graph?

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m sure there are, but truth is hard to find in a mainstream media universe full of lies.

    One of the problems is simply defining what counts as spending. For example, Obama’s “stimulus” started out as $787 billion, but was subsequently upgraded to $862 billion. But the actual cost is far more – $3.27 TRILLION. How and when will that massive cost be added into Obama’s deficits?

    What about ObamaCare, which was loaded with gimmicky budget tricks and is being found out to cost FAR more than Democrats said? They’re no longer even claiming that ObamaCare reduces the deficit anymore because that lie won’t fly anymore. How much will the ObamaCare anvil break the back of the budget, and when will we know how many hundreds of billions of dollars this boondoggle will cost?

    This evil and deceitful administration – the same one that has told so many lies – will continue to use every trick and every vile strategem to hide the truth from the American people.

  30. David Says:

    Michael, it is nice to discover your site. I have bookmarked it. It is curious how those who disagree with you do not stay to discuss the substance of what you say.
    Have you done any article on Obamacare? Did you catch the newly discoverd 5 billion dollars to Friends of Obama, (Unions, and favored corporations) in the form of kickbacks to their early retirement programs. Taking money from hard working citizens with less benefits, to give yet more benefits to those who vote the “correct” way. I do not understand how this was hidden. Probably in layer speak, referring to this document, which refers to this document, which refers to this document.

  31. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve written a ton on “ObamaCare.” You can either use the search engine that wordpress provides at the top right of my blog, or you can click on “health care” in the subject list on the right side of my blog.

    I used some of your keywords to find articles on what you are talking about. Here are a few:

    Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare

    $5B Hollywood Handout Bankrupting Obamacare

    Hidden in the Obama Care Bill – Money for the Unions.

    I would submit that this was hidden because Democrats had controlled the House, the Senate and the White House. And they could keep the Republicans from pretty much anything. But once we got one branch, we got the ability to SUBPOENA.

  32. David Says:

    Thanks Michael, and yes I figured out how to navigate your blog. I got to this particular article through a Bing link, then, not seeing a “Home” link at first had trouble navigating to your home page.

    I do not understand how republicans were kept from reading the 2,000 page Obama care because they were not in control, other then the fact that it was passed at ramrod speed. I guess Pelosi was correct, it had to be passed in order to find out what was in it. I understand that once all the references to other legal documents are assembled wshich are relative to the Obamacare legelation, the document is over twenty thousand pages.

    Again, thanke for your hard work in assembling facts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: