What Republicans who refuse to raise taxes or raise the debt ceiling are saying, in effect, is that they stole the deficit fair and square. These bars represent what was spent by Bush Jr. (left) and Obama (right, projected to the end of his presidency in fiscal year 2017). The money for the wars, the tax cuts and the big pharma donations (Medicare drug program) went somewhere. Someone got that money. And the people who got it were industrialists and bankers. And now they don’t want to pay it back. In the midst of all these discussions, the one thing that irks me the most is hearing John Boner accusing Obama of unchecked spending the past two years. When you hear that line flowing off his forked tongue, just remember old Dick Nixon telling us, “I am not a crook.” The numbers below speak for themselves — and remember the column on the right is projected through the end of Obama’s presidency. And his stimulus spending and tax cuts were extensions of programs started by the prior administration.
Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today’s high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it’s worth reviewing the history here, because while it’s familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn’t seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate.
By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending.
great article and the links to the top right, by same author, are worth reading as well
Off to the side again, but we just looked at the 2 soderbergh Guevara movies (and the Motorcycle Diaries – Walter Salles).
Interesting – particularly the second film (for me) where it was obvious that education and medical help was more appropriate than ‘revolution’ given the isolation and ignorance and poverty of the people, and that Che and co still managed to function and not to be completely demoralised with everything always going wrong, and that violence is messy and means that you (can) get stuck in a power (death/dead)end game. No violence? but the ruling elite surely only gave up the power in Cuba because of the will (backed up with guns) of Che and Castro and co – but then perhaps education and raising awareness over time works too – except if you have some corporate or colonising or urgent ‘interest’ not giving you time? And then what. But I liked Che Guevara – guns or not, a lovely man. And so yesterday we looked at the motorcycle diaries and you see that he accompanied those ‘across the river divide’ that that was the choice he made. A jump (or swim) too big for (any) others to risk. A very sobering (and imagine his poor mother: the mix of grief and love). But I liked his honesty, how he didn’t bullshit – that too was clear in the UN footage – direct, honest, straight, gentle, standing with the ‘poor’ too. We need (lives) stories and art which address these issues/needs I think – the antithesis to Murdoch and co…
(Of course Mandela (Playing the enemy John Carlin) raised the bar for non violent transformation), and what about the tipping point (monkeys suddenly all washing their potatoes in the sea, is it possible to raise ourselves in that fashion too).
And Che means ‘friend’ right?
love Pam
yeah, no doubt.
speaking of which, I can’t believe no one asked you about your British press/journalism/pass/card/member thingie. I think you said you actually worked for a British tabloid, so, I mean, did you ever bump elbows with this cast of characters we are hearing about?
plus I would imagine that Murdoch definitely would have been keeping tabs on his competitors, so I’m thinking you would actually know people directly that he might ‘have on file’ . mm. and if so, you prob. couldn’t tell us. just wondering out loud.
secret spy espionage antennae ‘on’…..
(not really-ha!)
Stella —- that is a great question
Gee maybe Murdoch has a file on…whoever
I would agree with you Len. add to that some common sense (is that teachable?).
out of sight, off the balance sheet.
there is nothing “free” about war machines
a lot of manufacturing though.
bankers- faaaa, they got money for nothing! literally nothing. betting on failure, they got money.
dang! look at those tax cuts! cripes! vacation home-check! boat-check! jet fuel-check!
why can’t Obama show this graph. or why can’t people understand this graph?
peace.
ps. I don’t know why, but this makes me think about all that shit we uncovered about the nuclear energy industry, you know, still benefiting from ancient legalese that was put in place to get the industry ‘going’ back in the day? that basically frees them from responsibility of damages?
Very clear, astonishingly so. This blog should be in the lesson plan for every history and social studies class in the United States this week. If that could happen, it would at least help the cause of learning from. Thank you.