The finest deficits money can buy

I get emails, and this morning I was greeted by this one:

let me see if I understand this. these deficits are bad,, but bush"s were fine. and I forget what was wrong with clintons surpluses. it is a hell of mess you people got us into..

this message was awful early, you repubs(now a small clique) must have a guilty conscious, o well the only way to distract your self from this stuff is to walk the applachian trail, or have an affair.
I don't especially like the "you people" tone, and I generally try to avoid it, as it's accusatory in nature, and the email reminded me of a woman who blindsided me in front of the polls one day and accused me of something I didn't do:
"You have allowed religious extremists to take over the Republican Party!"
So what have I done now? So far as I know, I have not had an affair in Argentina.* (Certainly not recently....)

But the accusation that I think Bush deficits are "fine" is too much, really. I resolutely oppose most forms of government spending (especially "entitlements"), I supported PorkBusters over the years, and I was one of those "hold-your-nose" Bush voters. So I replied by simply sending an attachment of the chart Glenn Reynolds has been displaying.

deficits.jpg

That's hardly an endorsement of Bush deficits as "fine."

However, if the Bush deficits were in fact fine, then the present deficits must be finer still!

* What I really want to know is after I return from Argentina do I get to walk the Appalachian trail nude?

posted by Eric on 06.27.09 at 10:28 AM










Comments

Obama's acolytes continuosuly refer to "Bush's deficits" as though what the US had under him, and what Obama is building to, are the same as thoguh they think "Deficits are deficits. numbers are just details".

Tough times ahead. I have no diesriret o have an affair, but could it be that Argentina will start looking like a good place to relocate to?

Rob   ·  June 28, 2009 8:07 AM

And it bears repeating: that chart clearly shows that a) surpluses were decreasing under Clinton after the Democrats took over Congress, b) despite the dotcom recession and the necessity of fighting IslamoFascism, deficits were shrinking under Bush, and c) they reversed course as soon as the Democrats took over Congress (you know, where all spending must be approved) again in 2006.

Democrats cause deficits as soon as they have control of spending. They cause worse deficits when they take over the Executive TOO.

SDN   ·  June 29, 2009 6:05 AM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits