» The Myth of Fiscal Conservatism Dvorak Uncensored: General interest observations and true web-log.

# 1 ECA said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:08 am

we should hand them the MAX they can spend, and LEAVE IT..
the gov does the same..and if you DONT spend it, they take that amount back NEXT YEAR..
say you have a budget of $12,000 and spend $10,000..NEXT time you ONLY get $10,000..
With all the cut to ALL the departments and PARTS of the gov in the LAST 16 years(clinton started it) the GOV is very CUT BACK, there isnt much MORE to cut, EXCEPT the HIGH PAYING JOBS..

# 2 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:10 am

Pretty funny Uncle Dave. There hasn’t been a budget surplus in 40+ years. The US has run a deficit since before Kennedy.

ROFL

# 3 Dallas said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:20 am

Like they say in accounting school – “the numbers don’t lie”.

# 4 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:31 am

#3 Dallas said, ““the numbers don’t lie””

Correct, however. Sometimes people do…

# 5 BillM said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:35 am

Paddy, read the post.
There is a big difference between budget deficit and national debt.

# 6 qsabe said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:36 am

Current repukes squeal is Obama is stealing the American dream from our kids. There is no dream left after they stole all I had to give them. More tax breaks for the rich.. Yea.. way to go assholes.

# 7 a said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:39 am

The difference between tax and spend, and cut taxes and spend. At some point they have to stop borrowing, but I think we’re on a better track.

There are things the private sector isn’t going to fund (roads, disaster monitoring, common defense etc…)

Do those stats included “emergency supplimental” spending in the past few years, for surprise emergencies, like the wars etc.

# 8 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:43 am

# 5 BillM said, “Paddy, read the post. There is a big difference between budget deficit and national debt.”

Yeah, it’s called accounting shenanigans.

If at the end of the year you made $50k, spent $45K and have $100 million in debt you don’t have a surplus of $.

But, if you want to credit someone for NOT sending, look at the years on the graph and tell me who wrote the spending bills during the “surplus” years of his Admin and who wrote them during the “deficit” years. LOL!

# 9 Petrov said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:47 am

Should we be suprised? If engineers called the shots we wouldn’t be in this mess but the useless lawyers control the gov’t.

Lawyers only know how to suck the life out of an economy.

# 10 Named said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:00 am

This is all you need to remember…
“the continuous consolidation of money and power into higher, tighter and righter hands.”
George HW Bush.

# 11 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:04 am

# 9 Petrov said, “Lawyers only know how to suck the life out of an economy.”

“If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?” – Jefferson

# 12 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:10 am

Uncle Dave should rename this: The myth of Neolib intelligence. ROFL!

# 13 Dallas said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:26 am

#12 Paddy, like I said, the numbers don’t lie.

The only thing you ever have left is to deflect attention to something else.

In case your wondering, moving to metric system is not gong to help either. We’ll rip you a new one there too.

# 14 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:27 am

#13 Dallass – You can’t address the salient points, can you? Another NeoLib brutally owned.

# 15 contempt said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:51 am

Another rhetorical fallacy. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for spending and/or wasting every dime they can steal or borrow.

This type of wasteful spending was wrong when the Bush congress did it and and it is wrong under the Obama congress.

We waste our time sidetracked by blaming the other party while the real political criminals go about their business spending us into national bankruptcy.

Toss off that yoke of public school indoctrination and place blame on all of the corrupt politicians that are responsible. It’s time to storm Washington with torches & pitchforks and fight back in the only way they understand or deserve.

# 16 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:52 am

#15 – Well said.

# 17 ArianeB said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:56 am

What are you conservatives complaining about, looks like Obama is a “fiscal conservative” too.

# 18 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:59 am

# 17 ArianeB said, “looks like Obama is a “fiscal conservative” too.”

Well, he certainly is continuing Bush’s fiscal policies AND spending even more. If it worked for Bush and economy then, I guess it’ll work as well now. ROFL!

# 19 Hyph3n said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:08 am

Blah,blah, blah… do you really thing that any President– Obama, McCain or even the sainted Ron Paul– would not spend as much as to try to save the economy?

Just the details would be different. No one wants to be remember as the 21st Century Herbert Hoover.

# 20 Mr. Fusion said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:09 am

#14, Cow-Patty,

#13 Dallass – You can’t address the salient points, can you?

Cow-Patty, it seems everyone except you is well aware of what the salient points are. The Republicans who have been campaigning as “fiscal conservatives”, have dug deeper holes with the budget than the “tax and spend” Democrats do.

You lose another one. As much as I hate trash talking, you are a loser.

# 21 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:11 am

# 20 Mr. Fusion said, “You lose another one.”

So, you can’t address any of the facts I laid out. Typical. I’ll answer again when you CAN.

# 22 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:16 am

#21, your facts are irrelevant. As are you.

You’re NOT smarter than everyone here, and you don’t always have more insight.

You’re a simple troll. That is the salient point.

# 23 QB said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:17 am

Does anyone remember Alan Greenspan preaching on the dangers of the US government running a budget surplus? He, and most conservatives, advocated tax cuts to wipe out the surplus. Of course, the liberal Dems wanted to spend the surplus on social programs. Clear thinking on both sides was in short supply.

Only in America would paying down debt be considered unhealthy.

# 24 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:18 am

# 22 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “your facts are irrelevant. As are you. ”

No, my facts are inconvenient. That’s why you can’t refute, you can only name call. Typical Omama zombie.

# 25 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:19 am

# 23 QB said, “Does anyone remember Alan Greenspan preaching on the dangers of the US government running a budget surplus?”

Yes! The Fed/banking cabal guys are the root of this problem. They should be shot and the Fed abolished.

Good post!

# 26 Alf said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:41 am

What produced the surplus during the Clinton admin? Our manufacturers were busy selling their equipment to overseas manufacturers and setting up overseas operations. The Clinton administration’s worst attribute was not sex in the oval office. It was letting lobbyists pay to destroy the U.S. manufacturing sector and thus the tax base of the United States. At one point we were getting 24/7 coverage of Bill’s sex life. Somehow Fox and all the non-news sources missed the important stuff…the destruction of our economy.

Then there was W who took the selling out of the U.S. to another level.

# 27 Hyph3n said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:42 am

I’m curious, Paddy-O… what would be your plan to fix the economy?

# 28 QB said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:46 am

Hyph3n, you just had to ask.

# 29 bobbo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:48 am

#24–Paddy-Zero==This thread is about the “Myth of Fiscal Conservatism” and even your own chart shows the debt goes up more under Repugs than under Dems==just like the OP highlighted. So–there is some inconsistency between the Clinton Surplus with the Nat Debt increasing each year–probably some lying beauracrat at work not including interest on the National Debt as part of the surplus calculation or whatever==but the point of the thread and your irrelevant side issue ((btw–well done, you did draw a few good folks off the relevant topic)) is CONFIRMED by yourself.

Well Done. Even a troll can’t clean up the Bush/Regan mess.

# 30 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:51 am

#26 The root of the problem is capitalism. Capitalism as defined by the making of $ without actual production. This in the form of interest on loans, selling bogus financial instruments, currency traders, etc., etc. (NOT free market production of goods).

The fiat currency is at the heart of this, along with private banks being able “create” money to loan above their real assets.

None of the financial shenanigans could have taken place without these fundamental flaws in the system. We have to revert to the laws in place before the creation of the FED & income taxes. (see prior by me and KD Martin on inflation/tax brackets)

You can’t “fix” the economy when the underlying system is unworkable and broken. That’s why it isn’t a Dem or Repub issue. It’s a basic policy/constitutional issue.

# 31 bobbo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am

Not being an expert, but leaning towards a capitalist/market solution to things capital and of the market==its becoming clearer to me that the banks should have been allowed to fail completely.

Transitional credit could be supplied by the Feds thru remaining banks, the Freddies, new programs, reformed old bank systems.

Giving thieves more money can still be avoided. I hope Obama wakes up.

# 32 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am

#29 Answer the question. WHO was in charge of spending bills prior to the Clinton “surplus”, who was in charge of same that resulted in the “surplus”.

Quit babbling.

# 33 bobbo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 7:56 am

#30–Paddy-Zero==wrong. The problem is unregulated/misregulated capitalism. Arguing for an international system of finance to be based on the barter system simply goes back too far to times that didn’t work as well as you imagine they did.

This crash is caused by many of the same factors that caused the crash of 29 and re-establishing the rules that were put into place and worked for 60 years to prevent another crash will be rediscovered and re-established again==all to the howls of crooks, bankers, capitalists, and gold standard goons.

# 34 jescott418 said, on February 28th, 2009 at 8:00 am

As we see by the chart, most of the time the government spends more then it takes in. This is the norm.

# 35 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 8:01 am

# 33 bobbo said, “Arguing for an international system of finance to be based on the barter system”

I suggested no such thing. Quit babbling.

# 36 bobbo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 8:18 am

Paddy-Zero==what else do you think “the gold standard is?” It is barter based on gold with paper money being a lighter symbol. Your knee jerk reaction to this accurate characterization indicates just how wrong you are and the value of labeling:

“Gold”—hmmm, good.
“Barter”—hmm, Bad!

Frankenstein no like FIRE!!!! hah, hah. Barter systems take you only so far and usually “magic bullets” are made of silver–not to confound the metaphor too much for you but your understanding of finance is “beastly.”

# 37 Petrov said, on February 28th, 2009 at 8:19 am

So we all agree… it’s the idiot lawyers in charge. These blood suckers need to be voted out of office. I wish there were more technical people involved in politics. I guess they’re just too smart to participate in the cesspool that is our gov’t.

# 38 Paddy-O said, on February 28th, 2009 at 8:30 am

# 36 bobbo said, “what else do you think “the gold standard is?”

1) I didn’t talk about the gold standard.
2) Gold standard was totally eliminated by Nixon I believe.
3) The FED problem is separate from the gold standard problem.
4) No gold standard is NOT equal to a barter system.

Quit babbling.

# 39 QB said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:06 am

Thinking about the gold standard is making me wonder if the US is experiencing a post-war type of deflation? I say “type” because the US hasn’t pulled out of the mid-East yet but has been at war for close to 8 years – which is far longer than most modern wars.

# 40 Dallas said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am

Paddy… You should quit babbling now and move to the next topic. Really. Cut your losses now – sell!
Just want to help you preserve what little dignity you’ve got left dude. We can only tolerate so much hand waving. Keep it up and you’re gonna take flight! The numbers don’t lie, man.

# 41 bobbo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am

Paddy-Zero==I’m sorry. You are right. I gave you a whole lot more credit (sic) than you are due.

At #30 you said: “The fiat currency is at the heart of this”–that is usually a reference to a desire for a return to the gold standard.

So, what do you mean by that phrase???

QB–deflation? Usually that refers to the economy at large meaning things are getting cheaper, everything I buy is more expensive than a year ago except for gas and computer parts? The value of our money is deflating meaning we have to pay more dollars for the same thing. I’d be guessing to say post war periods tend to be inflationary but every combination of trends can be seen at various times in history. Economics is highly variable–meaning no one actually understands it, except maybe the Padded One.

# 42 QB said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:43 am

bobbo, deflation doesn’t necessarily mean that an individual has more buying power. Is your house worth more? Can you get a better deal on a car than a year ago? Are your investments worth the same? Are interest rates going up or down?

To finance the wars and the tax breaks (double whammy) the US basically printed money. The money supply has dried up and the “real price” of goods and services is dropping.

# 43 chuck said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:44 am

The last “fiscal conservative” President that was elected was Herbert Hoover.

FDR proved, once and for all, that you could always get re-elected if you spend, spend, spend.

# 44 RBG said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am

Funny how Clinton’s budget surpluses exactly coincide with the US trade deficit falling off into the abyss, never to recover.

“The United States has posted a trade deficit since the late 1960s and it has been rapidly increasing since 1997.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_deficit
(See their pretty graph.)

RBG

# 45 bobbo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:57 am

#42–QB==right you are. It all depends on exactly what you are talking about, the time frames and so forth. My house and car are paid for so I’m not in that market and I believe both those major items are not included in the CPI, but I could be wrong.

Likewise with timing. Last year was the year of the bust. Everything bust related is cheaper==for instance Bank Stocks. Heating oil/gas is cheaper than last year but not cheaper than 4 years ago, or whenever.

So–define your terms, I you’ll get agreement from 90% of folks. I’m pretty sure most of the Iraq war was carried on with borrowed money (a fiscal policy venture) and not by printed money (a monetary policy venture). Both can result in deflation in the value of money with pure printing almost always doing so. As always, other factors do play into the formula and most of those other factors don’t look well for the USA either.

If you choose to disagree with me, I will immediately concede. I don’t take stands on economic issues ((other than simple definitional terms)). Too murky, undefined, variable.

# 46 Hill Destroys Dave said, on February 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am

More typical Liberal bullshit. No one said The Bushes were fiscal conservatives, while Clinton’s uptick was driven by the far right.

# 47 Hyph3n said, on February 28th, 2009 at 10:26 am

And yet even before the Fed system we had recessions and depressions.

I’m not a defender of the banking system, but show me when this utopia-Ayn-Rand system of laissez faire capitalism existed.

More to the point, let say we all agree that the Fed needs to be abolished and the income tax, and the dollar repegged to gold.

Whatever the long-term outcome would be, the short-term we can all agree would be massive bank falures, massive increase in inflation and massive unemployment. Joe Biden got hammered over asking for the number of a website. Do you not think Limbaugh would hammer Obama everyday for 20% unemployment?

I love Libertarians and their little fantasy world (actually, they have good points that do need to be worked into the fabric of our county), but to think that any politician in this day and age would sit back and not do anything while possibly the Greatest Depression unfolds is a whole new level of dreamland.

Yes, the gov’t is spending trillions. And if this doesn’t work, they will spend trillions more next year. If the Repubs were in power, they would do the same… they just have the luxury of being a minority right now.

# 48 Li said, on February 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am

“If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?” – Jefferson

I love that quote! Putting lawyers in charge of writing law is exactly like putting foxes in charge of the chicken coop.

# 49 smittybc said, on February 28th, 2009 at 11:34 am

Comparing absolute numbers is meaningless. If you earn $10k one year and borrow $9k you are in much worse shape than if you earn $100k in a year and borrow twice the amount or $18k. Though the amount that Obama is going to be spending is going to leave a very big mark for a very long time.

# 50 Cephus said, on February 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am

The problem is, there haven’t been fiscal conservatives in the Republican party for decades. All parties spend like there’s no tomorrow because their job is no longer representing the best interest of American citizens, but in getting re-elected at any cost. Any politician that went to their constituents and said “sorry, we’re out of money, all those programs you want will have to wait” would get voted out of office. They don’t want that, therefore they spend money whether they have it or not and let the next guy worry about it.

Look where this has gotten us. We’re in the worst financial mess since the Great Depression as all of the fiscal irresponsibility across the board has come home to roost. But don’t tell the politicians that, they’re still trying to buy your loyalty and your votes by putting your children and grandchildren into permanent hock.

# 51 cmon said, on February 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am

Figures lie and Liars figure. The graph is meaningless since it includes the excess Social Security revenue that has been used to “offset” other spending. The IOU is much larger in each of the years in the graph when you add in the borrowing from Social Security. Most of the surpluses in the Clinton years were actually deficits if one used standard accounting.

The sniping about which party is better at handling the federal budget is nonsense. They’re both terrible, and neither is willing to face the problem head on.

Obama’s call for us not to “kick the can down the road” is actually reminiscent of Bush II pre-9/11. Interesting to me that the 9/11 hiccup isn’t even acknowledged by the current administration. It kept Bush&co from even approaching the long term problems. It probably also forestalled the current economic disaster with all the deficit spending that followed. I always laugh about complaints about money “spent in Iraq”. Sure, some huge truckloads of bills were sent over there (and mishandled horribly), but most of the spending could be characterized as economic stimulus in the good ol’ USA. Paying the armed forces, defense contractors, etc. Isn’t that what got us out of the Great Depression?

# 52 Jason Miller said, on February 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

This is a nice propaganda piece that has been floating around liberal sites. It’s similar to the recession chart Pelosi released a few weeks back. Just statistics showcased in a way to trick the public.

Replace the name of the president with the party that controlled the Congress you’ll get a better idea of how liberal vs conservative works on budgets.

Also anyone who thinks Bush was conservative was a lunatic.

# 53 Buzz said, on February 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

#51

The graph is not biased toward either party. While one graph may not tell the whole story, at least it isn’t pushing an agenda of comparative prejudice.

# 54 Buzz said, on February 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm

Uncle Dave,

Maybe you can find similar charts that show environmental positive/negatives under each party. Or citizen deaths from terrorists, war, highway safety issues or hurricanes. Or happiness index. Or freedom index. Or execution quotients. Or number of lawyers shot in the face index, etc.

I think that Republican -ism is like that Road To Hell they keep talking up in asphalt class.

# 55 Thomas said, on February 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Just so we are all clear, Obama’s recently signed budget is worse than all of the budget deficit’s run by *both* Carter *and* Reagan **combined** (12 years!). It almost worse than all of the deficits listed for Bush II **combined**. Myth indeed. Obama is the first true liberal since Truman or perhaps Roosevelt (Clinton was a moderate) and look at the result out of the gate. The graph would have to be four times taller in order to even show Obama’s first budget deficit.

# 56 MikeN said, on February 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm

If they took the chart out further with their projections, you would see that it took A Democratic Congress <4 years to double the national debt from 2006.

# 57 father time said, on February 28th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Paddy is mostly correct. The only economy that can exist is one based on production and consumption.

All else is a fantacy of free money for no work, and free money is expected “right now” by everyone who has grown up in the US. Like anything that requires no work, free money has no real value. However, that is what everyone expects.

# 58 MikeN said, on February 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

How about some real numbers for Bush 2? Projected for 2006? That’s 3 years ago.
I suspect the real numbers are much larger.

# 59 brm said, on February 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

#52 Jason Miller:

“Replace the name of the president with the party that controlled the Congress…”

Thank you. Why did the thread go thst long before someone said this?

# 60 Just Me said, on February 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

Do the numbers for the G.W. Bush years include the wars in Iraq and Afganistan? As I recall, his administration never did include the cost of those wars in any of their yearly budgets.

# 61 Cap'nKangaroo said, on February 28th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

I heard on the radio that the Obama admin is using the figure of 3.2% growth in the GDP for the budget year. Does anyone else find this highly optimistic? To the point of delusion?

# 62 giantblah said, on February 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pm

Since when are Reagan and Bush Jr considered fiscal conservatives????

# 63 LibertyLover said, on February 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

#47, I’m not a defender of the banking system, but show me when this utopia-Ayn-Rand system of laissez faire capitalism existed.

It has never existed because the majority of people don’t believe they can make it on their own. It is only the individualist who rises above everyone else. Show me anyone on welfare who has done anything other than be a drain on society. Only after standing up for themselves have they become productive citizens.

I love Libertarians and their little fantasy world (actually, they have good points that do need to be worked into the fabric of our county), but to think that any politician in this day and age would sit back and not do anything while possibly the Greatest Depression unfolds is a whole new level of dreamland.

Only because it hasn’t been tried before. We’ve tried everything else and it hasn’t worked. Perhaps we should.

# 64 ECA said, on February 28th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

#4,
NICE..
shows an interesting trend..
as wages go up, and TOP CEO’s are getting more money…the COSTS go up also..

# 65 Alfred1 said, on February 28th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

Obviously its time for the fair tax, the rich simply cannot pay all the cost themselves.

Especially now that there are fewer of them.

As for the premise “two wrongs make a right,” that’s absurd…

Even if we accept deficits seem to be the norm, only a few years were in suplus, it doesn’t follow Obama can spend more in his first year than Bush did in eight.

# 66 ECA said, on February 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

65,
2 points to make here…
1. if you look at the tax for everyone, its ALMOST a FLAT TAX ALREADY, or was..
2. IF you look, there are WAYS around the tax, and the RICH use many of them..
One is to NOT TAKE a salary, but let the company PAY for your expenses.. WHICH makes it a write off to the corp, and NO TAX to the person(s)..
Another is to create a SUB company that receives money from the corp. THAT is a tax write off to the CORP, and the company shows expenses, and NO PROFIT…which makes ALMOST everything a write off. A couple of these NO PROFIT companies can make you good money..

See, the IRS hasnt done a remarkable thing..
an Inter-relative system to TRACK costs and payments to ALL legit companies and corps. it makes it EASY to hide money..

# 67 MikeN said, on February 28th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

>the short-term we can all agree would be massive bank falures, massive increase in inflation and massive unemployment.

No we don’t all agree on this.
A gold standard serves to reduce inflation, not increase it. You get more inflation without a gold standard since it makes it easier for the government to print more money.

# 68 MikeN said, on March 1st, 2009 at 1:38 am

>It is barter based on gold with paper money being a lighter symbol.

What? A barter system is … with money…
is a contradiction.

# 69 Uncle Patso said, on March 1st, 2009 at 2:58 am

# 41 bobbo said, in part:

“QB–deflation? Usually that refers to the economy at large meaning things are getting cheaper, everything I buy is more expensive than a year ago except for gas and computer parts? The value of our money is deflating meaning we have to pay more dollars for the same thing.”

Yes, some things are still going up in price, but the biggest things — houses, companies (stock) — are falling in price. This is kind of an anomalous situation, but nevertheless real. We are having inflation and deflation at the same time.

I hate inflation, especially when it’s intentional. It steals from me; my purchasing power is lessened. But people who owe a lot love inflation as it decreases their debt. They HATE deflation, as it means they will have to pay back more. This is part of the reason for the credit crunch: too many people whose houses are “under water” (debt now greater than the market value of their house) just walking away kills the lenders. They’re afraid to lend more now, in case deflation continues and too many people just walk away, default, go into bankruptcy, whatever.

Deflation is real.

- – - – -

# 63 LibertyLover (who must be a true Ayn Rand fan) said, in part:

“Show me anyone on welfare who has done anything other than be a drain on society.”

Once, after working at the same place for eleven years (the best job in my whole life), I was forced out. I received unemployment benefits, which allowed me to keep my apartment and not have to live on the streets. When I got a job that started in three weeks, they sent me all three weeks’ worth of benefits at once, which allowed me to take a bus to California and pick up the car my brother was giving me (which he got from our mother) so I could drive to work. Then I worked at that place for four or five years.

So, 15 to 16 years of productive, tax-paying, unemployment insurance-paying work, with some two or three months of “welfare” in between. This is about average for recipients of welfare. All the social workers say so.

# 70 LibertyLover said, on March 1st, 2009 at 5:19 am

#69, Why did you look for another job once you were on unemployment?

And note: I don’t consider unemployment insurance to be in the same boat as welfare.

# 71 Alfred1 said, on March 1st, 2009 at 6:42 am

Also the graph doesn’t go back to the start of the debt…Democrats controlled both houses of Congress most of those years…and the constitution puts the budget in their hands…

But we (the electorate) are the real culprit, we allowed the change to our constitution for an income tax…which resulted in a corruption of congress as they extort protection money via the tax code…

Everyone in America benefits from being in America, therefore everyone should pay tax, rich or poor, via a “fair tax.”

Check it out…expanding the tax base is how we regain control of our government, and pay of the deficit.

# 72 bobbo said, on March 1st, 2009 at 7:08 am

therefore everyone should pay tax, rich or poor, via a “fair tax.” //// hah, hah.

# 73 Paddy-O said, on March 1st, 2009 at 7:18 am

New O’mama broad based energy tax is going hit every American. What happened to no new taxes on those making less $150k, or $100k or $70k or, or, or?

# 74 Alfred1 said, on March 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am

One of Obama’s first acts was to stop any drilling for gas in Utah…no doubt he will stop any off shore drilling also…or make it so hard its effectively prevented…

$5.00+ a gallon is coming, once demand for gas picks up, and you can thank Obama, he (and his fellow loons) caused it.

Liberals are so hurtful to the community…liberal policies so damaging…its a wonder they ever get elected.

One can only credit our school system, which has everyone thinking with their feelings, rather than reasoning critically upon facts…

# 75 MikeN said, on March 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Eight years of George W Bush’s deficits, various disingenuous Republicans kept saying they were forced into it by Democrats, didn’t want the ads about draconian budget cuts and no services for the poor, and that it would be so much worse with the Dems in charge. Any look at the charts showed that this was bogus. Republican Congress spent less with a Democrat President, and it was even less with a Democrat President and a Democratic Congress.

Now we see that the current Democratic Congres and Democratic President will in fact equal George Bush’s 8 year total deficit in 20 months.

# 76 ECA said, on March 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm

If you look at inflation..
It started 10-15 years ago..
SLOWLY prices started going up.
About 9 years ago, it started going faster.
3 years ago hit started RUNNING faster.

Find a reason for the inflation??
1. wage increase’s for the bottom wage earners.
2. Wage increase’s for the TOP.
And its funny. as the bottom gets a 10% increase, the TOP wants at LEAST 10% more.. except that $0.50 increase on the bottom, IS NOT EQUAL to $100,000-$1,000,000 increase at the top.

# 77 Paddy-O said, on March 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm

# 76 ECA said, “If you look at inflation..
It started 10-15 years ago..”

No. Inflation actually started exploding between ‘72-’74.

Reason? Injection of currency that is running WAY ahead of year to year change in actual GNP.

# 78 Fixed Annuity Rate said, on March 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 am

Hello friend, I read this article.

# 79 Immediate Fixed Annuities said, on March 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 am

I feel your blog really useful and inspiring me. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing information and i appreciate it.Looking for more discussion and waiting for new topics here.