My wife told me that she thinks I like Louie C.K. so much because he and I have the same sense of humor. I think that is the nicest thing she has said to me in eight years of marriage.

This is not how I want things to be, but it's how they are.

Even if by a miracle Paul won, he'd find himself paralyzed. Obamarx initially had a lot more support, but (fortunately for freedom) failed his moonbat brigades on almost every count.

The Fed will not end in even eight years of a Paul presidency, nor will all US troops be recalled (so red china can take over the rest of the world). It's just the way things are.

Put another way, violent revolution is far more likely than a Paul presidency, and at this point we have a fairly good chance of having the former. Still, if Paul somehow gets the nomination, he's got my vote.

The area in which believers and non believers differ in so many ways is in regard to how far in the future one can perceive the concept of “no pain no gain”.
When I first heard this analogy, and when I read Job for the first time, I too was tempted to see Dan’s point of view and get angry with God for the terrible evil He allowed to happen to Job. (Make no mistake God is responsible for Job’s misery and the death of Job’s family). But what I see now and Dan does not is the difference between the killer and God: purpose. The killer did it for no reason and God did this for a great reason. God permitted this incident for the purpose of instruction, demonstration, and perception. The pain Job and his family sowed produced some of the greatest fruit mankind has ever known.

Allow me to explain:
Let’s say my eight year old recently started taking things that are not his. I am concerned for the welfare of my son for his whole life and not his welfare for the moment so I punish him; say I give him a time out. My son does not perceive the long term benefits I may be doing for him by teaching him stealing is wrong so he now calls me mean or evil. I am doing something mean and evil to him to a degree for the immediate moment, but I am doing this in hopes that there will be a long term benefit that will outweigh the immediate pain.

Assume for a moment that God is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent: all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, all loving. He knows every possible future for mankind. He may do things beyond our comprehension that for us for the “moment, lifetime, century, etc.” might seem mean or evil but He sees the long term benefits.

This is in essence what a believer believes. God has a purpose for everything. We may not see it or comprehend it but He is working for a greater good. Our faith and trust is in this. The story of Job is a very rare occurrence where God directly and drastically interferes with our lives. I’m certain that if Dan as well as Job were given the choice of sacrificing themselves for the good of their children, let alone mankind, they probably would. God choose Job because he knew he wouldn’t be cross with Him. I choose the word cross on purpose because for those who want to know Job is a type to Jesus who sacrificed himself for us.

IS THERE NO SHAME?

Joe Paterno was fired by the Penn State Board of Trustees on Wednesday night as head football coach of Penn State. It was the first good decision that has been made in the last two decades by the leaders of Penn State. The man was told that his Defensive coordinator was seen in the locker room shower raping a 10 year old boy in 2002. He did not call the police and report this crime. He and the other top officials at Penn State brushed this crime under the rug, allowing at least seven more young boys to be raped by this monster. The 28 year old graduate assistant not only did nothing to stop the crime he witnessed, but he accepted a position as an assistant coach, knowing that Paterno and the Athletic Director never did anything to hold Sandusky accountable for his crime. Sandusky was still on campus working out as of last week. The actions of all the players in this disgusting example of how far our society has degenerated are enough to make someone lose all hope for humanity:

• Jerry Sandusky creates a charitable organization so he can gain access to little boys. Multiple incidents are witnessed on campus from 1994 through 2002. A mother reports Sandusky to the Penn State police in 1998 and nothing is done by the men in the Administration. The investigation is dropped, but Tim Curley forces Sandusky to retire in 1999. It is clear that everyone in the top echelon of Penn State knew Sandusky was a deviant pedophile. But letting it become public would have been a black mark on the football program and could have reduced the huge profits generated by Paterno’s kingdom.
• After his forced retirement he is still given access to the campus and locker room facilities. He is caught having anal sex with a 10 year old boy in the locker room shower by a 28 year old man, who chooses not to intervene and save the boy. Joe Paterno does the absolute minimum when informed of this horrific crime. After this crime is covered up by all the key men running the show at Penn State, it just becomes business as usual for Joe and his cronies.
• Sandusky continues to rape little boys for the next eight years because of the cowardice and complete lack of morality exhibited by the men in high places at Penn State.
• With the issuance of the grand jury report last week, the psychotic nature of these men was on display for the world to witness. In a stunning display of arrogance and hubris, Paterno and the President of Penn State announced their full support for the Athletic Director and VP of Finance who were arrested. These men did not think they did anything wrong. They clung to the fact that they adhered to the laws created by other men. In a despicable display, Joe Paterno led a cheer at a pep rally in front of his house with his arms raised in victory. At least eight boys had their lives ruined and Joe Paterno leads a cheer.
• The Board of Trustees summoned the courage to fire Paterno and the President last night. In another display that makes me wonder about the future of our country, thousands of students rioted in support of Joe Paterno, breaking windows, turning over news vans, and starting fires. Are these young people incapable of critical thinking and are just driven by emotion and mindless rage? Can’t they distinguish between facts and lies? Do they care more about football than innocent children being raped?

Didn't you read my note above? the Kids channel is *for* kids, this is not something I would want to show my eight year old. *nochannel *Asia *Wtf *British *Wheels *News *wheels
>> ^ant:

british kids

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Obama is the one bailing everybody out.


Bush is the person who bailed out Wall Street. Or were you not watching the news that day? Obama just continued the bailouts. It's not really fair to blame a problem that was snowballing for so long on the person who became president right after it happened. Bush had eight years. Not only did he not do anything about the housing bubble, but he set us up to spend six-billion-dollars-a-month on the fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only to have Obama catch Bin Laden.

I'm willing to entertain the idea that the Democrats are responsible for our predicament as well. But focusing on the left-right controversies is exactly what the people in power want us to do. Because it prevents us from discussing the real issues. We can just sit around blaming each-other forever as far as they're concerned.

When my father graduated high-school, he learned the floor-covering trade. (carpet,vinyl,etc...) His first job paid him three dollars an hour and it was enough to support a family of four. Back in the sixties, three dollars would get you a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes with a dollar left over. Now, three dollars won't even cover the gas I spend to get to work, not even one way.

And people can spin the numbers and facts any way that they want. Just as I've done here. But no matter how you spin it, the fact that there is a problem is glaringly obvious to most people. Even if we don't see it the same way. You obviously think there's a problem as well, but I just can't buy that we live in a society where working hard brings success, not anymore.

And you know what? If people keep protesting in numbers like this, they're going to make a change for better or worse. You don't need to be organized or even "right" to have an effect. The power lies in the numbers, not the message. It's the same for the Tea Party. Wouldn't it be great if we could come together and use those numbers for something positive?

>> ^ptrcklgrs:
Special cleaning crews are being brought in to clean up after the trash messes left all over by the "99%" costing the city $$$.


And one last thing: Who do you think was responsible for cleaning up Boston Harbor in 1773?

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.

Maybe if these drugs were mass produced... but herein lies a new problem: New HIV infections have been reduced by 17% over the past eight years! Urgh that's what you get with big government. Free market thinkers know the bigger your customer base is, the better it is for business, and the consumer therefore is the ultimate winner.

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.

What's that little Timmy? Blankfist's bullshit posts give you AIDS of the eyes when you read them? Well it's a start. FREEDOM!

Where are the "lies"?

Isn't this "Obama Plan" the same old rubbish?

Another "stimulus"?
Another clarion call to raise taxes on the wealthy?

Conspicuously absent: cutting/slowing government spending, scrapping onerous regulations

"In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:

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!


You've leapt off this cliff countless times, lefties.
Flapping your arms harder won't slow (y)our plunge.

Actually I have no problem with motive. I heard Ron Paul say at the debates that we are spending 20bil to air-condition tents for soldiers in Afghanistan... that 20bil is making SOMEONE really rich, so there is definitely a LOT of profit to be made in war.

That said, there is absolutely no way in hell that our government (present, past or future) is clever enough to pull off some of the absolutely ludicrous shit that these conspiracy nuts are peddling. What pissed me off the most is how many internet "experts" we have on demolitions, engineering, plane debris, etc.

It is the same logic that idiots who think that aliens built the pyramids use: I can't conceive of how to build a pyramid without the use of modern heavy-lifting machinery, therefore ancient societies couldn't have possibly done so and therefore... fucking aliens.

Basically, just because they don't understand something, they go to ANY explanation that is controversial and feeds conspiracy. NWO Ninja Demolitionists, lizard politicians, aliens, impossible conspiracies where hundreds if not thousands of participants have to not only keep quiet, but also cover an inevitable trail of planning, communication and on-the-ground efforts that simply cannot go unnoticed.

Seriously, there is just no way that our government, stupid fucks that they ALL are (dems, reps, libertarians, etc), just no way.


>> ^NetRunner:

@marinara maybe I've just forgotten my 9/11 conspiracy storyline, but to me the problem with the whole "WTC was taken down by demolition" theory is motive.
Why would someone want to do that? It's a lot easier to destroy documents with shredders, and there are much easier ways to commit insurance fraud.
I can see someone making the case that some people in the US wanted 9/11 itself to happen, but I don't really see why those someones would do something as weird as packing the building with explosives, and then hitting it with airplanes.
I mean, there was an Al Qaeda bombing of the WTC some eight years earlier, why mess with the planes if you could've just blown the building up with secret bombs?

@marinara maybe I've just forgotten my 9/11 conspiracy storyline, but to me the problem with the whole "WTC was taken down by demolition" theory is motive.

Why would someone want to do that? It's a lot easier to destroy documents with shredders, and there are much easier ways to commit insurance fraud.

I can see someone making the case that some people in the US wanted 9/11 itself to happen, but I don't really see why those someones would do something as weird as packing the building with explosives, and then hitting it with airplanes.

I mean, there was an Al Qaeda bombing of the WTC some eight years earlier, why mess with the planes if you could've just blown the building up with secret bombs?

Factually incorrect? Tell this guy:

"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 Morgenthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt

If the revisionist history of the left was accurate, the Golfer-in-Chief could reproduce the results of FDR's "success".


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate


"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."



>> ^JiggaJonson:



>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah FDR, that delightful 'benevolent' fascist whose policies prolonged the Depression and whose ass was saved by WW2.

That was as retarded as it was factually incorrect.

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.

Bush 43 ran up the debt by 5 trillion in 8 years. He was criticized for it. Obama has run up 3 trillion in 3 years, with nothing to show for it. Bush 43 started ths scamulus nonsense and Obama expanded it.

As for Slick Willie, read about The Myth of the Clinton Surplus here.



>> ^longde:

>> ^quantumushroom:
BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.
Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.

longde, as much as I'd love to stick it to QM over this, you're oversimplifying it.

Reagan ran up the deficit with a Democratic controlled Congress. Clinton balanced the budget with a Republican controlled Congress. Bush Sr. is getting a bit of a bad rap in your analysis. He was in wartime, so you're gonna run up the debt during war, and we absolutely should have gone into Iraq the first time.

Bush Jr. on the other hand did run up the debt with a Republican controlled Congress. Granted, with 9/11, etc. it was going to be difficult to not run a deficit, but Bush Sr. + the GOP Congress unnecessarily exacerbated the problem with the Bush Tax Cuts and Senior Prescription Benefit. And by 2004 or 2005, we should have been running a surplus.

What I find absolutely appalling about QM's argument is there's no context in why the debt was run up by Obama. It's really simple - the economy was in free fall. That's exactly what the gov't must do in that situation. Everybody knew it. Bush Jr. knew it, too, which is why the stimulus and bailouts started under him, and continued by Obama. It's painfully obvious to anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation about this topic.

>> ^longde:
>> ^quantumushroom:
BR>
Out-of-control spending is wrecking this country, and calling Tea Partiers "crazy" and espousing 'tax increases' will not stop this in any way, because the left always spends more than it takes in, more so than the right.
Obama & Friends are already spending printed trillions, to no effect.

The facts belie this point. Republicans love to spend. In fact, half the debt we have created since Reagan was done in eight years; care to guess which eight years? If you guessed Bush---ding, ding, ding! How he did it: Iraq War, Stupid unfunded Medicare extension, Insanely Stupid tax cuts---these 3 items make up nearly half the increase in the debt since Reagan. These were all republican initiatives.
Bush, Reagan, and Bush Sr. ran up gobs of debt, with the full support of the repubs. Clinton actually reduced the debt. Republicans fought him tooth and nail, but he handed bush jr a surplus. Obama spent money to head off a depression.