RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Understanding the Debt Mess

By Larry Johnson on June 26, 2011 at 9:35 PM in Current Affairs

This is not a “beat up” Sarah Palin piece, but it is important to note that she is not getting some basic facts about the national debt correct. In fact, she has been dead-ass wrong. Here’s what she said:

During a family bus trip, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made a claim about the size of the debt accumulated under President Barack Obama.

“Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years,” Palin, a Republican, told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren on May 31, 2011, as her bus rolled down the highway. “It’s more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined.”

We’ve heard similar nonsense from Michele Bachmann:

“From the time when George Washington took the presidency on his first day to the day George W. Bush left as president of the United States, all 43 presidents, if you take all of the debt combined of all of those 43 presidents, do you know that all of that debt is less than the debt that was accumulated by Barack Obama in one year? That is the level of debt and spending that we have engaged in. So this isn’t hyperbole. This is facts.”
–Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Jan. 21, 2011

Here are the facts, so far the President who accumulated the most debt during his term was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama:

Bush grew the debt, or at least was President during the period January 2001 thru December 2008 (to be precise 20 January 2001 until noon on 20 January 2009) from $5,807,463,412,200.06 (THAT’S 5.8 TRILLION DOLLARS) to $10,967,276,000,000 (i.e., almost $11 TRILLION DOLLARS). That was an increase of $5,226,456,000,000. Five point two trillion dollars means that Bush almost doubled the size of the debt he inherited from Bill Clinton.

So where does Barack stand? As of May 2011 the Federal debt was at $14,344,668,000,000. Subtract $10,967,276,000,000 and you get $3,377,392,000,000 trillion dollars.

It would be correct to say that Barack Obama is presiding on the most explosive growth ever in the Federal debt. He’s racked up more total debt in two and one-half years than any other former U.S. President, but George W. Bush played a huge role in helping worsen this mess.

If Sarah Palin wants to be taken seriously (or any other Presidential aspirant for that matter) she must get her facts right. Making shit up is, shall we say, Obama-esque.

Republicans need to stop pretending that this flood of red ink at the Federal level only started with the influx of Democrats into Washington. Nope. George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the top five most profligate spenders in the history of American Presidents. But he shares something in common with Jimmy Carter–Barack Obama’s debt record will make us forget the profligacy of Bush just as Obama’s Presidential record helps erase the memory of Carter’s incompetence.

  • Anonymous

    Larry…..Aren’t the dems very involved in allowing this debt to accumulate during gwb’s term, most especially when they held the majority in Congress?  Just asking because I truly don’t know…

    “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”
    http://www.saywhatyouwill.proboards.com

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      Absolutely.  I’m not giving anyone a pass, but it is important that we speak and write accurately and precisely.

      • Anonymous

        Sounds reasonable.  But in the past, we can see that even when Sarah Palin puts out all the facts correctly, she still gets reamed by many.

        “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

      • Anonymous

        Sounds reasonable.  But in the past, we can see that even when Sarah Palin puts out all the facts correctly, she still gets reamed by many.

        “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”

      • candymarl buster4u

        Dear Mr. Johnson I can speak accurately about the the fact That my grandfather from slavery days was the son of the slave master. As a matter of fact we have red hair, green eyes, blonde hair, and blue eyes on both sides.

        What I want is not a media frenzy when one side is right or wrong but when both sides are right or wrong.

        I get called redbone alot because of my skin color.

        People have questioned my daughters parentage because of her light skin and “good hair”.

        No one gets it right all of the time. If we humans did we’d either be Christ or God or whatever you choose believe in or not.

        The problem I have is that the media will excoriate Palin for her “Mistake”.. Yet the Obama administration walks free. What about the dead Border agent?  That’s way more important than Palin got wrong. Yet we have “crickets”…

        • Anonymous

          Thank you. And of course, for me, one of the biggest ass mistakes that the POS CIC made was the other day when he didn’t even know that the CMH winner DID NOT come home alive. I know Larry covered it on here, but come on, the media was silent.

          I’ll take Palin anyday, any time and twice on Sundays before I’ll take anyone else out there.

          Plus, let’s not forget that we also had a democratic congress and senate starting 07. I didn’t vote for Bush, but I’ll tell you this, I didn’t shake in my shoes about him like I have with this POS.

          And Baracky hasn’t even finished his 1st term and we’re at record level spending. Do you not think for one minute that had not the Republicans taken over Congress in 10 that he wouldn’t have surpassed the deficit? And the dems still want MORE SPENDING. So no, I’m not too worried about Obama beating Bush in the spending department, he’ll do it.

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

          I’m not part of any slave dispute.  I’m only talking Federal debt.  OK?

      • Anonymous

        Unless I have a reading comprehension problem, that chart pushed the first 9 months of Obama’s presidency (in which the $870billion stimulus was passed) into the Bush administration.  Bush was not President in 9/2009, though the associated defecit for that time is attributed to him.  The numbers look highly massaged, by starting each time frame in October of the previous office holder’s presidency. And, it cuts off in Sept 2010 before any QE outlays.   Sorry Larry, not buying it. 

        • Ferd_Berfle

          The government works on a fiscal-year basis–October 1 through September 30–and not a calendar-year basis. The numbers are correct.

      • Anonymous

        Agree, my concern is to what degree (not here, not you) but the media will rake Sarah for a mistake. I don’t want her to be incorrect, but even when she is right, she is wrong as far as much of the media is concerned, so I suppose I could look at it as all the more reason to make sure one is correct when making statements about the debt; which I believe as well should be everyone’s goal, including the msm when repeating comments adding their spins. Another way to look at it, is if Sarah Palin corrects her mistake, is she allowed that, or is it already considered a lie or stupidity? Not directed at Larry, just recalling so many men, so often who are given gratas no matter what they do or say. Thinking back to a Weiner moment a few weeks ago, and this man serial liar is still on our payroll. Sarah is not, and I hope she comes out and clarifies her statement. Just sore over the years of constant attacks by the msm on females, when the men are rarely held to the same “high” standard. I have confidence Sarah will address the comment and clarify, or defend it if that is how she sees it. Curious to see what happens.

  • candymarl buster4u

    Look up the numbers Palin.  Although the CBO may disagree. Don’t let Palin get anything wrong or she will destroy us. Oops she’s neither a member of Congress, the Senate, or the President.

    Her state of Alaska was one of the few states in good financial shape when she resigned from office.

    She was off by  the numbers.  Go after her for that.  But she never signed a budget bill under GWB or Obama.  Of course we will never hear the end of this. 

    No matter who is in charge remember she’s not and never has been.  But she’s not allowed to err in facts or figures. But Obama can and gets zero grief. Obama can err even when it involves those killed in battle.  But don’t let Palin get the numbers wrong although nobody died and no war was started as a result.

    BTW where are the reparations for Generations of slavery where nobody got a salary?  Not asking for a free ride but many years of working for nothing and being owned like animals means nothing.

    Let’s not forget that the KKK, and other supremacist groups hunted us down like dogs and killed men, women, and children.  Is that not a classic example of terrorism?

    Obama’s daddy’s family helped sell slaves.  Obama’s momma’s family owned slaves but let’s not talk about that.

    This is beyond politics.  We are all Americans and we are  all hurting…  .

    • Anonymous

      Agree Candy, I was thinking the same thing; I guess for possible future sound bites, perfection is in order. The thing is maybe it was a mistake, but from where I sit, it sure does look like the one has come close to being the most spendy CIC in our history; have we been this close to having to have the debt ceiling raised before? Just wondering out loud. As far as making a mistake, maybe so, and since we are often asked to forgive misspeaks that we know are direct lies from so many men, can we at least wait and see if Sarah either corrects herself, or further explains this before we hold her to the impossible perfection demanded of any female either in politics or able to garner this much media attention? Just askin.  

      • Anonymous

        Hillary knew her facts, knew her numbers, was darned near perfect in her delivery and look at what happened to her. Sexist gestures, names, charges of racism-it’ll be the same for SP

        What to do? Yes, be as accurate as possible but then what?  I agree with some of the commenters-dig up his pre-election speeches when he was talking about tightening our belts, sacrificing, and reversing GWB’s policies-  and then relate his 3+ trillion to his words

        And if she wants to win over the middle class independents who voted for the One all she needs to do is convince them that she can find their kids jobs and get them out of the house!(I have many friends who are saying this!)

        • Anonymous

          I remember too what was done to Hillary, I know that is why I am a bit sick of it all. I wouldn’t waste a minute looking up anything he could try and defend if Sarah runs, I would simply say, Obama, you sucked the taxpayers dry, and it shows” Finesse is clearly not my strong suit. 

        • Anonymous

          Also being the Demtoinette’s the DNC is, I would bring up the sheer vulgarity of raising and attempting to spend a billion on a campaign.

  • Onofres arm

    Perhaps a better correlative for understanding the growth of the national debt is the one between it’s growth and the party in control of congress. You’ll be surprised to find that there’s a much closer relationship to debt growth and democrat control of congress, than there is to the political party of the president. Bush’s deficits weren’t that remarkable until Nazi Pelosi took over, and Clinton’s deficits didn’t shrink until Newt took over. In both instances, there were well documented reasons why this happened, and it wasn’t due primarily to Presidential initiative (especially with regard to the feckless Clinton), but by policies and bills that were pushed through by congress.

    However, I to am somewhat bewildered and irritated by the mathematically ridiculous nonsense that’s been making the rounds that has Obama increasing the debt more than all other Presidents combined. Inaccuracy on the issue undermines the argument against Obama, there’s no need to falsely exaggerate his destruction, it stands alone in it’s historic disgrace. 

    A better graphic might be to compare the growth of the GDP with the growth of the federal government since Obama and the Dems have held complete control for two years. While the economy barely grew at an anemic 3%, our blessed federal government grew by close to 25% if you measure it by it’s profligate spending. Please explain to me why a government should expand more than eight times faster than the economy that’s needed to sustain it! 

    In a society that’s so god damned obsessed with the concept of “sustainability” with regard to the environment, it sure is odd that that same concept is so confusing when applied to the role our government should play.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      In a society that’s so god damned obsessed with the concept of
      “sustainability” with regard to the environment, it sure is odd that
      that same concept is so confusing when applied to the role our
      government should play.
      ===============
      Well, OA, since money is green, retrogressives figure throwing a lot of it around is good for the environment. They’re abject idiots, of course, and nothing more need be said.

    • Anonymous

      Onofre, I agree, particularly on a puzzlement as to why Obama’s opponents feel that they must fabricate embelishments of his record.  The truth is sufficiently bad to vote the guy out, why lie?

    • JackN

       So in 28 months Barack’s debt is $2.5 trillion less than Dubya’s over eight years.  Barack incurred the debt at an average of $125 billion per month.  To reach Bush’s level of debt Barack needs 20 more month.  That means he will reach Bush at ……..January 2013!!!

      Obama is set to “double down” on Bush, literally!  If you give him another 4 years, he might quadruple Bush.

  • DM

    G.W.B. went from a surplus to a deficit spending.  How did he do it? By giving the the rich a tax cut that was supposed to give us an big a good economic growth, but what we got was anemic growth for most of his presidency.

    • Anonymous

      Yea, I really hate that tax cut that I got under Bush. It sucked/ sarc off. And I mean unemployment under Bush sucked too. It was what ? A big ole 5-6 %? I can see why a 9.1% unemployment under Obama would seem so much better to you. And my house under Bush, why it was only worth about a measly 20,000 more than it is under Obama. I can see why you’re so mad about GWB and the damn rich, I mean they  did actually employ more than under Obama. Shame on them.
      Pathetic

      • DM

        I’m happy for your tax cut, but don’t bitch about the deficit

        • Anonymous

          Don’t lie and say it was just the “rich” that got the tax cut and then try to play the “rich” vs “poor” shit. Middle class got the tax cut as well and since we all know that the poor doesn’t pay their fair share of taxes, then you really need to STFU until you know what you’re talking about. Even this past year, when Obama was dithering on whether to make the “Bush’s tax cuts” permanent, he wanted to make sure tha the “MIDDLE CLASS’S tax cut were made permanent. So even Obama acknowledged that the middle class gott the tax cuts. Keep up. Oh, and it’s the spending stupid that’s the problem. Me, keeping my own money isn’t the problem.

        • Ferd_Berfle

          I’m happy for your tax cut, but don’t bitch about the deficit
          ============
          We’re mainly bitching about democrats like you who would use up everything in sight like the locusts you are. Is that clear enough? Here’s another: My money isn’t yours to waste. You want more? The policies you support have failed in the past, are failing now, and will fail in the future.

          Enough!

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6RLFUOLWP23SJ5RQHENEPHKME David L

      The surplus was an estimate by the CBO, it never existed, IT WAS ONLY A PROJECTION BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICE.   We all know that the Govt NEVER over estimates anything !!!

      • Anonymous

        Thank you. That is true, it was an accounting gimmick, just like the gimmick that says the “healthcare bill” will SAVE money. No such thing.

    • Anonymous

      “How did he do it?”

      The question should be why did it happen?

      The answer is not the tax cuts. The answer is 9/11 the economic disaster that immediately followed, and the need to dramatically ramp up national security to unprecedented levels and to go to war.

      • Anonymous

        And you forgot the .com bubble. Bush didn’t come in with a “clean slate”, no matter how you dice it. Did he spend too much? Yes, on things that some of the dems wanted so that he could get his things passed as well. I won’t forget this past year when the CIC held our military’s pay for ransom. I don’t have that short of memory.

    • Onofres arm

      “……but what we got was anemic growth for most of his presidency.”
      That’s complete bullshit DM, but I’m sure you’re too stupid to ever accept the truth. It’s so much easier for nitwits like yourself to keep repeating the same hackneyed liberal talking points, than it is to actually take an objective look at the record.

      Here’s the % of GDP growth during the Bush years:

      2001    +3.4%
      2002    +3.5%
      The relatively low growth in these two years is easily attributed to the residual effects of the dot.com bubble and, of course, 9/11, both events that could hardly be laid on Bush.
      2003    +4.7%
      2004    +6.5%
      2005    +6.5%
      2006    +6.0%
      2007    +5.1%
      These growth rates easily reflect the remarkable recovery and growth that was stimulated by the Bush tax cuts.
      2008    +2.6
      This is Bush’s worst year regarding GDP growth. Some of the reduction could be explained by the normal cyclical retraction that follows the previous exceptional expansion, and some of it was due to the burst of the housing bubble that was the disastrous result of failed democrat sponsored social engineering policies, like the CRA, and abysmal democrat oversight and protection of Freddie and Fannie.

      The AVERAGE yearly growth in the GDP during Bush was 4.8%, which could hardly be called “anemic”.

  • Anonymous

    Will the republicans want to spend money on their buddies
     who will in turn want to make money?

    Will the democrats want to spend money on entitlements 
    and social justice?

    I’m sure there is so much more……….

    Pick your poison? 
    —————-

    Sarah’s a good choice at least she says who 
    she is and what she stands for.
    She’s real !!!!!!!
    ——————-

    TALKING HEADS- ROAD TO NOWHERE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFgayzZ5KTM

  • Anonymous

    Republicans are NOT ignoring George Bush’s spending spree, but they are pointing out that Obama has increased the spending spree to a degree that has never been seen in history. 
    Sarah Palin doesn’t make shit up.  She fights EVERYONE, including her own party. She made her State solvent and kicked out the crony Republicans.  You didn’t know that?  Then read  up on the woman, Mr. CIA.  Are you going back to Bush bashing?  How forward thinking of you.And Sarah Palin isn’t making things up.  You are. 

    • Ferd_Berfle

      Larry is on target and rightly corrected Palin. The Republicans can’t criticize the retrogressives for mistaken figures and then conveniently ignore mistaken figures on the part of their own. It is hypocrisy and we’ve more than enough of that to go around. The way to beat Oblahblah is to point out his and the democrat’s mistaken policy of take, take, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend, spend. Numbers need not even come into play as they are subject to error and are only a symptom of the democrat’s policies. The real problem is the democrat’s philosophy, principles, and priorities–these are what should be used as a club against them.

      The 4-Ps should be the focus:

      Policy
      Philosophy
      Principles
      Priorities

      The Republicans can win if they can demonstrate theirs are better and more in tune with America than those of the democrats.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W6RLFUOLWP23SJ5RQHENEPHKME David L

        I don’t think that there is anyone in this administration that understands what is going on with the economy.  These morons don’t have a clue as to what they are doing.  I believe that after these clowns are out of office, there needs to be a precident setting investigation, as to the violations of our constitution, common sense, and any other rules that have been broken, bent, ignored ect., and people need to be prosecuted and held accountable for their actions, this would send a message to future administrations also, screw up and go to jail or be fined for your actions.  ITS TIME TO HOLD POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS !  

  • CentralMass

    In 2000, on this date, The revenue to GDP ratio was 37.4%,  while spending as a share was 36.2%. The gross debt to GDP ratio was 60.4%. The Bush tax cut were implemented and by 2004 the revenue to GDP ratio was 34%, while spending as a share was 39%. Gross debt as a share of GDP was 64.4%.  Corporate tax receipts went from 195.7 billion in 2000 to 159.9 in 2004. The GOP had held the Majority in congress for a decade at this point.

     In 2008 on this date revenue to GDP was 36% and spending as share was 40.2%. Gross debt as a share of GDP was 71.4%. The democratic did regain congress in 2006. They voted for Bush’s TARP bill.

    Today revenue as share of the GDP is 30.54% and spending as a share is 46.6%. Gross debt a share of the GDP is 97.9%. President Obama lobbied his party to extend the expiring Bush tax cuts in 2010, and they did.

    So in 2000 the spending vs revenue as share of the GDP delta was +1.2%. We were running our second consecutive annual budget surplus for the first time in 4 decades. Since the Bush tax cuts were enacted the spending vs revenue as share of the GDP delta has been -5% to -6%.
    This year Corporate tax receipts are at 195.9%, roughly the same this date in 2000.  Revenue as a share of the GDP is 7% lower then it was in 2000. While corporate profits are at historic highs. We are bleeding $ 4billion dollars in debt a day.

    • CentralMass

      The should have read: “This year Corporate tax receipts are at 195.9 billion..

    • Anonymous

      You raised the correct point as a percent of Gros Domestic Product. Our economy is always growing and, unfortunately, so is over federal government spending. So absolute numbers can be misleading.

      So just to restate, National Debt as a % of GDP:

      1990  42.1%
      2000  34.7%
      2001  32.5%
      2004  36.8% (wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)
      2007  36.2%
      2008  40.2% (Bush TARP)
      2009  53.6% (Obama spending spree)
      2010  62.2% (Obama spending spree part 2)

      There has been no President in American history that has place this country in this much debt – certainly since World War II.

      • Ferd_Berfle

        Thank you, Hokma. You put the numbers in their proper perspective. Central Mass and others will defend the indefensible until the herd comes home, all the while bringing up the now irrelevant former presidents as a fallacious argument in favor of their indefensible position/policy. I do hope Sarah’s associates are onto this context, which is fairly damning.

        • CentralMass

          I didn’t defend anyone. I stated the cold facts.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      We are bleeding $ 4billion dollars in debt a day.
      ============================
      When you find yourself in a hole, especially a self-made one, the first order of business is to stop digging (elementary process analysis). In this instance, stop digging is represented by another phrase–stop spending. Views such as yours are part of the problem. We can’t tax our way out of this mess and even if we could, it would only enable those addicted to spending money that isn’t theirs. Time for a mass intervention.

    • Onofres arm

      CentralMass, the entire argument that you put forth with the support of cynically manipulated figures is a complete non sequitur. You seem to imply that the growth of revenue to the US government MUST rigidly parallel the growth of the GDP, and that the growth of government must also be somehow linked to the GDP. Why? While comparing the GDP to various things like tax revenue, government expenditures, and the national debt, might be an interesting scholastic exercise, it’s ridiculous to draw the conclusions you’ve implied with the comparison. You obviously imply that the size of government and it’s revenues should pace the growth of the GDP, but why is that so? Shouldn’t the growth of government be more closely linked to the rise in population, and not to the fluctuations of the economy?

      Let me demonstrate the fallacy of your reasoning:

      From 2002 to 2008, the GDP increased by 36%
      From 2002 to 2008, tax revenues increased by 43%
      From 2002 to 2008, the US budget increased by 45%
      From 2002 to 2008, the national debt increased by 61%
      From 2000 to 2010, US population increased by 9.7%

      With these figures I could make all sorts of claims and speculations, some valid, some deceptive. Yet, all I can really do is make some educated observations. The government is obviously growing much faster than the economy during this time period. The debt is increasing, as a percentage, much faster than the growth of the government, but that’s because annual deficits compound to produce this increase, even though the +2% difference between the increase of expenditures and revenue doesn’t seem significant. That’s why it is crucial to know the details (the size of the annual deficit, for instance) of the starting points and the ending points when attempting to draw valid conclusions from the data. You didn’t supply crucial data that is needed to understand your argument, you’ve provided no baseline, no foundation, and no control group! Your figures are a total mish-mash of cherry picked data that have very suspicious interrelationships and correlations, a classic example of using figures to deceive and confuse. I used 2002 and 2008 as start and end points, and I acknowledge that using different start and end points would yield much different results, but this only validates the overall point I’m trying to make about your manipulation of various numbers.

      Looking at the Bush tax cuts with regard to revenue, it’s clear that the cuts reduced revenue, but ONLY for a very brief time. The growth in the economy that resulted from the cuts eventually caused a proportionally greater increase in tax revenue. In this respect, the tax cuts could easily have been considered to be an INVESTMENT in our economy that served to heat it up, to the benefit of everyone, including the US government. This type of investment, with the hope of future returns, is done all the time. Few businesses are profitable right out of the gate, they suffer initial losses because their investments are greater than income, but wisely invested capital will hopefully yield much greater returns in the future. Reagan’s large investments in the military and armaments eventually were one of the principle reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the return of that initial investment was the peace dividend that was enjoyed toward the end of Clinton’s presidency. The demonstrably false, short sighted claim that the Bush cuts to those nasty rich people were somehow responsible for the increase of deficits and the debt is not born out by the facts. A more reasonable claim would be, that without the Bush tax cuts, the economically crippling ripple effects of 9/11 might have sent our economy into a tailspin that would have caused a deep recession, or perhaps a depression. In this sense, the tax cuts were a remarkably effective inoculation and elixir that PREVENTED the wound of 9/11 from mortally infecting the entire country.

      • Onofres arm

        Another remarkable comparison comes to mind. Compare the overall effects that the Bush tax cuts had on the economy, to the effects that Obama’s stimulus has had on the economy. Both programs were the response to economically damaging events. Bush gave the private sector the opportunity to solve the economic problem by leaving more capital in their hands, while Obama, like a good little liberal, foolishly thought that the government could solve the problem by borrowing capital from future generations, and using it to reward supporters and various levels of government related operations that produce nothing.

        While federal revenues took an initial hit after Bush’s tax cuts, the economy recovered rapidly after 9/11, and unemployment hovered below or around 5% until the very end of Bush’s term, when the busted housing bubble (a mostly democrat designed catastrophe) dragged our economy into the sewer.

        Obama’s unpaid for $800 billion stimulus has virtually done nothing to stimulate the economy, and unemployment INCREASED while it was brought on line. The $800 billion BORROWED by the government to ostensibly invest in our infrastructure and economy has yielded ????????? returns. Just imagine how much more wisely the private sector would have invested a similar amount of money. If, instead of creating a government directed ‘stimulus’ program, Obama had engineered an $800 billion tax cut directed at cranking up the private sector, I can guarantee you that productivity would rapidly increase when the prospect of greater profits from that productivity becomes apparent, and hiring would be at record levels as companies and manufacturing expand in response to the competition vying to get a piece of that newly available capital.  

        • Docelder

          Capital to our economic system is like oxygen to us. A capitalistic system needs capital supply to function and the government under Obama has smothered the private sector by what is the functional equivalent of sucking all the oxygen from our atmosphere. Just as we would smother and die so has the private sector under Obama. 

  • Anonymous

    Larry, why don’t you read THIS guy’s site.
    I found it by one of your own posters.  
    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

  • Ferd_Berfle

    If Sarah Palin wants to be taken seriously (or any other Presidential
    aspirant for that matter) she must get her facts right. Making shit up
    is, shall we say, Obama-esque.
    ======================
    Point taken. Sarah does need to have the facts straight. That being said, the emphasis should simply be on just the idea that Feckless Leader wants to raise taxes during a time when the economy, for lack of a better verb, sucks. The democrats have ALWAYS had the mistaken impression that money an individual or corporation makes is theirs to take and subsequently act from that unethical, unprincipled position.

    What I make is not theirs. What the company I work for makes is not theirs.

    Democrats are takers. if they were so *concerned* about the plight of various groups in this country, then instead of lining That One’s war chest with a billion dollars and other candidate’s chests to the tune of millions, they would give that money to those whom they piously pretend to care about. I don’t buy for one nanosecond their sanctimonious bullshit. This is about power and the democrat’s need to maintain it through ensuring their base stays on the plantation.

    This is the truth and represents the theme that Palin needs to hit them with often and hard. Palpable, demonstrable hypocrisy might fix the democrat’s little red wagon but good.

    /rant off.

    • Anonymous

      Ah, so true, so true, Ferd. 

  • Docelder

    Well the planes did hit the buildings early on with Bush… so he did have to respond. Did he overreact? Maybe he did. No more planes have hit buildings though. No water holes were poisoned etc. We keep coming back to the Clinton surplus which as I recall involved some creative accounting… I guess it depends on the what the definition of “is” is though probably. As with everything Slick Willie touched including his interns. But here is a graph.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      My question is whether the deficits listed for the Bush years include the cost of the wars, which at one point were off the books. Just curious.

  • Anonymous

    If she got the numbers wrong and is just demagoguing then I hope she will correct herself and move on to things that are true. Lord knows there are plenty of things to beat Oblahblah over the head with that are ignored by the media and are absolutely true.

    Because I like and respect Sarah Palin I don’t want her to be just another bullshitting pol. I want her to get it right because she is better than them and better than that.

    That said, the LSM will still beat up on her and give the asshat in the Oval a pass on all his drivel. That’s just a fact of life.

    • Unbelievable

      I looked you up after reading some of your other comments, and can’t say I’m surprised by what I have seen here and in other places… A few parting thoughts: 

      It is so funny to watch how your vocabulary changes with Fox’s talking points… I highly doubt “demagogue” was in your everyday vernacular before Fox put it into regular use. It makes me question how many of your (and I’m being generous here) “thoughts” have been packaged and sold to you from a fake news organization…Oh, and your regular victimization of yourself and everything you believe give you away for what you are… A hypocrite and a weak minded individual. I hope, for the sake of our country, the portion of the population capable of rational thought and behavior speaks out against you and your crazed brethren so we can all actually work toward something better.YOU are the biggest danger to our democracy, and you are infecting everything… Thanks.

      • Anonymous

        You mean like the idiots that voted for Obama? That portion of the population that is uncapable of rational thought and behavior and their crazed brethren and are the biggest danger to our democracy. They’ve infected everything they touch from education to jobs.

      • Ferd_Berfle

        The only thing unbelievable is your stupidity, obamabot.

      • Anonymous

        What did you do, “like”, yourself on this one? Calling KenoshaMarge the names you so boldly put forth, simply shows you for exactly what you are, an ass. Never have seen you here before, and, if you think this is how to get along or get a dialog started, you aren’t quite right. That isn’t the plan though is it? It is to come in lay your crap all over the place, and skitter back to your hole. Typical coward.

        • Anonymous

          Typical condescending coward Katmoon. Also rather delusional if it thinks one little old lady voicing her opinion on a blog is a danger to our democracy. Who knew I was so powerful?

      • Anonymous

        Oh, joy, another f*cking troll.

      • Anonymous

        Since you don’t “know” me how very condescending of you to assume that you “know” the level of my vocabulary. Yawn, swat.

      • Anonymous

        Oh, I see – you are buying Jon Stewart’s BS that people who watch Fox are misinformed. Turns out he was WRONG abt that, at least according to Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winning organization. Don’t take my word for it – here is the link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

        But I doubt that would matter to someone who writes with such condescension for people you don’t even know. Wow.

        • Anonymous

          The fool is also assuming that the only place I get my news is FOX. FOX is indeed on of the many places that I get information. Unlike the unbelievable fool who obviously only knows how to do attacks on people he/she/it doesn’t know. I do understand that a person being allowed to voice their opinion, right/wrong/indifferent is a threat to Democracy when your idea of Democracy is to have only the voices you agree with or the voices in your pointy little head allowed.

          I was a Democrat for over 40 years. Were they always such POS and I just never noticed because partisanship blinded me to reality? Or have they become the scum-sucking, demagoguing, lying, corrupt POS that we see on a daily basis just recently? Whadda ya think? Always or recent?

      • Anonymous

        Oh, I see – you are buying Jon Stewart’s BS that people who watch Fox are misinformed. Turns out he was WRONG abt that, at least according to Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winning organization. Don’t take my word for it – here is the link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/20/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-says-those-who-watch-fox-news-are-most/

        But I doubt that would matter to someone who writes with such condescension for people you don’t even know. Wow.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      Because I like and respect Sarah Palin I don’t want her to be just
      another bullshitting pol. I want her to get it right because she is
      better than them and better than that.
      ==============
      I agree. She is better than that and has the upper hand, which she needs to maintain.

  • Guest

    What they meant to say (Romney included): the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the
    federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is
    more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public
    that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through
    Ronald Reagan. :)

     

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      Yes, if they had said that there wouldn’t be an issue, but they didn’t.  Parroting talking points does not require intelligence or thoughtfulness or actual understanding of an issue.

      • Guest

        Although just off the top of my head, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the 3.6 trillion budget blueprint figure more than doubling the debt cited all over the place, even last year from economists in the WSJ, etc. 

        So I’m not a Palin supporter, but just saying it isn’t like when she, Bachmann, and Romney make a similar error (apparently), that it is the sort of glaring misstatement that shows how ill prepared she is for national office…

        • http://openid.aol.com/sljbook lizzy s

          In the forty years I have been voting competent well prepared Presidents have been scarcer than hen’s teeth.  None of those candidates now so ill prepared for national office could possibly be worse than the current idiot squatting in the White House.

  • Anonymous

    Bush biggest spender since LBJ

    2007 McClatchy-DC article, showing areas of increased spending, and remarkably, a lot of conservatives acknowledging Bush’s big spending: 

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/10/24/20767/bush-is-the-biggest-spender-since.html

    • Anonymous

      Misleading but from McClatchy, a arm of the Obama media crew, I would not expect anything different.
       
      Of course Obama blows everyone away with his spending.

  • Anonymous

    Some good charts on debt by presidential term:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

  • Carol

    Has she even announced that she is running?  Did I miss that?

  • Wbboei

    It would be correct to say that Barack Obama is presiding on the most explosive growth ever in the Federal debt. He’s racked up more total debt in two and one-half years than any other former U.S. President, but George W. Bush played a huge role in helping worsen this mess.—————————-
    Larry: it would be even more correct to reflect on what has been called the Law of Holes, which says when you are in one (a hole) . . .  stop digging.

  • Anonymous

    O/T

    Gov. Scott Walker (R, WI) balances budget over Democratic protests.

    June 27, 2011

    Via Ann Althouse comes this video of a mini-stampede by Wisconsin Democrats, upon hearing that Governor Scott Walker was supposedly leaving the Capitol after signing legislation balancing the budget without raising taxes:

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…

  • Anonymous

    O/T

    Gov. Scott Walker (R, WI) balances budget over Democratic protests.

    June 27, 2011

    Via Ann Althouse comes this video of a mini-stampede by Wisconsin Democrats, upon hearing that Governor Scott Walker was supposedly leaving the Capitol after signing legislation balancing the budget without raising taxes:

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…

    • Anonymous

      -

      WAY TO GO, KENOSHA MARGE!!!

      CONGRATULATIONS!!!

      • Anonymous

        Here’s some more on the bill Walker signed:

        Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signs budget bill, vetoes just 50 items

        Ashwaubenon – Gov. Scott Walker signed a two-year $66 billion budget Sunday that will cut nearly $800 million from public schools, expand taxpayer support for private voucher schools, cut taxes for investors and businesses, clamp down on property taxes and put the state’s finances in better shape than they’ve been in for more than a decade.
        http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124563073.html

    • Anonymous

      -

      WAY TO GO, KENOSHA MARGE!!!

      CONGRATULATIONS!!!

  • Anonymous

    I’m not quite sure why I should care about what Sarah Palin says on her self promotion tour.  Michelle Bachmann, a declared candidtate for President in 2012, is another matter because I have to make a decision on whether or not I am going to vote for her.

    A candidate for President who has no executive leadership or management experience like Bachmann, rendering her in effect the Republican counterpart to Barrack Obama prior to his 2008 election, can ill afford factually incorrect statements which reveal their ignorance.  My advise to Ms. Bachmann is that she had better be prepared to answer questions on why one should vote for an unproven novice like her when we have others with a proven record of executive experience.  Hopefully she will have a better answer than, “Obama didn’t have any experience either before he became President.”

  • Anonymous

    Larry, you are absolutely right. If there is no accuracy in political statements made, then society as a whole discounts EVERYTHING that politicians say. Even when it is serious and honest and imminent.
    A country run by Used Car salesmen.

  • yttik

    They’re not wrong, Larry. Bush created more debt than all our other president’s combined. Obama inherited that debt and created more of his own. That means the country is now buried under a record making amount of debt, more than any other president, indeed, more than all of them combined.

    It’s not a lie, it’s not even a talking point, it’s just another way of looking at things. You want to be technically correct, you could explain that our Civil War debt reached 2.7 billion, so presidents of days past probably didn’t even know what a trillion was. Obviously Obama has accrued more debt than all our other presidents combined.

    As to Bush vs Obama, Bush does hold the record, but Obama is right on his heels. Bush is officially at 5 trillion, Obama is now at 4.2 trillion. Keep in mind that Bush served 8 years, Obama hasn’t even finished his first term.

  • Anonymous

    Dream a Little Dream

    An exercise in reality on debt and the budget:

    http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/06/dream-little-dream-how-long-would-it.html

    Englewood Neighborhood in Chicago: A study in Government Policy Failure!

    http://www.businessinsider.com/janet-tavakoli-housing-prices-2011-6

  • Doc99

    They probably confuse debt with deficit.
    http://i52.tinypic.com/zxva4j.jpg

  • elaine

    Can’t help but wonder if GWB really believed the Iraq war was going to pay for itself.

  • Anonymous

    More funny math from Larry Johnson. 2009 was  Bush’s last budget year, not Obama’s. Budgets are put in place a year ahead of time. So the $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009 is completely owned by Bush. In addition, most of the deficit and debt increase in 2010 was because of the drop in tax revenues caused by the recession. Therefore, what is even being added to the deficit today is mostly the result of the Bush recession.