Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Some Economic Information for You

This is a rather long article that examines the history of our national debt. It examines the increases in spending since WWII and shows who is mainly responsible for. Some highlights:
  • As President, Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself.
  • It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender.
  • The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined.
  • In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.
  • When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion.
  • As a result of all his [Bush II] tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. As a result of the fact that the debt was already pretty high when Bush II entered office, his annual rate of increase is only averaging 7% per year so far. In 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.

So, again, people wonder how the economy got in such bad shape, well, here's a bit of the answer. Of course some people (my family) think that trickle down economics works, history has shown that it really doesn't. Somehow they think that voting another Republican into office is just what the country needs. Unfortunately, there too history shows us that another Republican increasing spending and decreasing taxes is not what we need. We need someone responsible enough to cust spending, stop tax cuts for the rich and reign in spending. I can't say for sure that person will be Barack Obama, but I'm pretty darn sure it's nopt going to be John McCain.

My favorite paragraph in the article:

While it is a great jabbing sound bite, the facts show that the “tax and spend” rhetoric Republicans often spew about Democrats is not as bad as it sounds. Taxing before spending actually reflects good government. The facts also show that it most often takes a Democratic President to control and reduce spending. The truth is that the Republicans are the party of “borrow and spend”. They hate taxes, but love to spend; their solution is to put off paying till later for our security today. They prefer to see our children pay for their debt. Neo-Conservative thinking has run up over an 8.5 trillion dollar debt that will not be paid off for a generation or more, and is still increasing at an astounding rate with no end to deficit spending in sight.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Two Faces of Bush

Well, I don't have time for a long rant, but check this crap out.

From 2004:
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush
told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in
Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken
care of."

From 2008:

"President Bush has asserted executive privilege to prevent Attorney General
Michael Mukasey from having to comply with a House panel subpoena for material
on the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. "

I guess we can see how much he really wants to know who it is... I suppose the point is that he already knows who it is, he just doesn't want the Democrats knowing who it was....

That's How I Roll...




My friend Rick sent this to me and it was too good not to post!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

FISA It's Everywhere You Want to Be

Well, the Democrats rolled over again yesterday and bowed to the wishes of president Bush. The Senate pased a 'compromise' FISA bill. The FISA bill basically set up how the administration can spy on it's own citizens. Another convenient benefit is that it gives immunity to the telecoms who have already allowed the White House to spy on Americans without a warrant.

The new bill basically allows for the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant for 6-12 months. It's all a part of playing the game. Start spying, then work on getting a warrant, if you can't then just appeal it, by continuing to play the game they can get more than 6 months withough ANY judicial oversight. I'm not sure what the compromise is, because I don't see anything that the White House gave up, or that the Democrats didn't. Now there are more protections for Americans living in other countries, but it's not them I'm worried about.

Almost more upsetting is the fact that Barack Obama changed his view and voted to pass the bill. Back in January, when he was trying to win the nomination he was totally against the bill, and now that he has it he's decided the time is right to kowtow to the republicans in order to try and turn some of them.

I spoke with a friend about this and his point was that the bill was going to pass anyway and that he just did it to try and appease the more conservative voters on the fence, like this would show that he's not soft on terrorism. I can understand that rational for a politician, try to get as many votes as you can, give the other side less to go after. But you know what Barack Obama is supposed to be a NEW kind of politician, is supposed to bring change to politics. All this is just more of the same and it bothers me that I fell for it.

I'm sure I'll vote for Obama, after all, what other choice is there? But I'm certainly not going to fall for anymore of his "change" rhetoric. I'll just hope for a slightly higher-caliber politician than we currently have. We'll see how that works out.

For more information on the FISA bill check out:
Ars Technica- They explain how this isn't just about immunity.
Salon- Joan Walsh feels betrayed by Obama too.
Here's a good video too: