http://www.neatorama.com/2012/01/23/worst-superpower-ever-turn-yourself-into-a-pile-of-ladybugs/

>> ^CelebrateApathy:

Get up off your couch, walk to your bathroom and look in the mirror. Be honest, If you woke up tomorrow and could all of a sudden do the things this man can, you would likely think you were bitten by a radioactive spider and had become a superhero. It truly is amazing what the human body, even sans gamma rays, can accomplish.

I'd be pissed off that I didn't get a useful superpower.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:
When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:
I think it would be a good idea.
I feel the same way about free market capitalism.
It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.
If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.


think you'll find that it's the move towards a more free market that made things worse, from deregulation in the 70's onwards. governments and presidents Preached about the reduction of big government, and letting the market do what it wants.
Granted, its never strictly speaking been, a free market, because you still had government taxing (though as Wolff has pointed out in the video, shifting the burden completely away from business, and therefore, the market) but what you can say is this:

history now tells us that the more free the market, the worse things become....what makes you think having a 100% free market would make things perfect?
It would be total anarchy. The wealth divide would become incomprehensible.

It's all there, in history. The proof to end all these arguments is there, because it's already happened. Regulation, after the great depression, immediately improved things for America, taxing the wealthy, using that money to put in infrastructure that made america a superpower.
Deregulate everything, and watch the western worlds decline (for the majority).
That is what happened, you cannot argue a situation that actually happened.

All you need is a government that isn't corrupt, that doesn't pander to the free market and peoples desires to win elections, but instead holds certain ideas to be true. The death of idealism was supposed to make individuals free, instead it produced a new kind of control that made things a lot worse for the majority of people.
I believe science will ultimately find out the definition of 'human flourishing' and therefore create a new idea of what is actually best for a society.

Huh, I got it right. Now how do I apply my obvious superpower to a life of crime and debauchery...

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^packo:
the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's...


check again.

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's... check the taxation rate then

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

He'll think he has superpowers and get a shock when he tries this again in a back alley somewhere.

I hope she gets superpowers... then she can pair up with Zeburaman!

Are you ever going to address the fact that the Great Depression was ended by massive record deficits, followed by taxing the richest by over 90%?

Your entire argument is deficits never work, and raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy. I just gave you an irrefutable example of that being dead wrong, and you go into FDR's New Deal. Dude, I'm not debating the New Deal with you.

Prove that the US economy got out of the Great Depression without massive deficits (regardless if it was New Deal spending or WWII spending, it's irrelevant), followed by massively taxing the rich over 90% in the 1950s, during which the US economy was extremely prosperous.

That's the thing, dude. You can try to dodge this all you want. I'm not letting you try to move to discussing the New Deal, or Social Security, or how apparently communist George W. Bush (SERIOUSLY?!?!? WTFBBQ?!?!?!?) is.

This example in US history proves your rigid, ideological economic philosophy is dead wrong. You can't argue honestly that deficits are always bad, and massive gov't spending is always bad, and the US gov't can't help aid in turning around the economy. It most certainly can. It indisputably did. There's no "some fact" to this. It absolutely is historical fact.

That's the thing. Once you admit that yes, deficits can and do help end recessions, and taxing the rich more heavily can be good for the economy, we might be able to actually have an honest, adult conversation about how to help the economy. Until that, you're just spewing idiotic and/or intentional misinformation.

And then you just completely glossed over the entire reason why the gov't is almost always the one who HAS to spark the economic turnaround. We NEED the gov't to stimulate the economy, just as we need the gov't to put the brakes on when the economy grows too quickly, which is when those deficits can get paid for incidentally.

Are you just gonna sit there and call everyone other than the Tea Party communists, or are you actually going to address any of this?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.
But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.
The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.
Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.
But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.
This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.
There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.
FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.
This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.
Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.
They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.
Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.
Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.

But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.

The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.

Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.

But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.

This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.

There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.

FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.


Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.

This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.

Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.

They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.

Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.

Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.