|
|
|
June 27, 2009
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..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.
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
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 06:05 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Thank you for ignoring my heresy
• Your candidate's adultery is worse than mine! • Whose favorite villains are to blame for the latest horror? • Hating Sarah Palin is so gay! • That Should Work • • If there's one thing worse than a GOP sex scandal, it's a Southern GOP sex scandal! • Overdosed on absolute relativism • No silence here! • Neda Net
Links
Site Credits
|
|
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?