« How She Rolls | Main | From The Sublime To The Ridiculous »

June 03, 2011

Comments

gringoman

Maybe I am really cynical, but if you study the history of the American Indian, and look at their state of existence today, I think you can see the future planned for the "masses". It isn't Socialism, but it is Complete reliance on the government for one's very existence.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 05:35 PM

American Indians were automatically inducted into a Third World welfare class, dependent on Libworld's eliteniks, as have been other minorities and the lowest rung of whites.

The clearer analogy is with Cubans who escaped Cuba, Germans who escaped East Germany, and all East Europeans who remember what it was like under the Soviets and their puppets. Americans who want to know what's happening in the US today don't even have to read history. All they have to do is talk to these Cubans and East Europeans who see exactly what's happening here and are amazed at how Americans don't see it as they get sucked in further all the time.

DJ

How do you know he can't take down the half-shvartzeh middout a mustache?

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 05:43 PM

-----------------

Of course I don't KNOW he CAN'T win. He certainly deserves a shoot at it. We shall see if he can hit the bullseye?

"half-shvartzeh middout a mustache"

HAHA! Shame on you, Ummah!

DJ

It isn't Socialism, but it is Complete reliance on the government for one's very existence.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 05:35 PM

It's going to be "interesting times" when the Government's checks start to bounce.

DJ

"I'm still waiting for socialist slogans less than a hundred years old." (--Gringoman)

-----------------------

Here's one:

"Diversity is our strength"

DJ

"Independent thought is not a concept with which very many Americans are familiar or comfortable. Most want to have their emotions stroked, to be told what they want to hear. They already know what they think. A writer’s job is to validate it, and if the writer doesn’t, he is, depending on the ideology of the reader, a misogynist, a pinko-liberal commie, or an operative for the fascist establishment. All will agree that he is a no good SOB.

As I wrote a while back, respect for truth has fallen and taken everything down with it."

(-Paul Craig Roberts)

Source:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/110523_culture.htm

DJ

Interesting entrie from VFR:

Is any Republican ready for the consequences of having defeated the black messiah?

"At the end of the long colloquy between James P. and me on an issue of interest only to presidential triviasts, I said that Romney would probably have the best chance to defeat Obama, and James wrote:
The rage, hate, and insanity that characterized the Dean enthusiasts will emerge full-force against the candidate who takes on Obama, and will be doubled if he wins. The Republican candidate will have to have a very strong character to withstand that hate and to govern effectively. Does Romney want to win badly enough to go down in history as "the man who defeated the First Black President"? If he wins, will Romney spend his entire time trying to appease liberal rage by governing as a liberal and stamping the GOP label on high taxes, amnesty, carbon regulation, more largesse for blacks, etc.?"

To which I replied:

... you raise a larger issue of what will happen to any GOP nominee who runs against, and possibly defeats, the first nonwhite U.S. president. Would any of them have the fortitude to withstand the hate you are talking about?

more >>


http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019522.html

Chief Joe

When the bottom of the Ship of State is at the top, something is WRONG!

MoLibertarian

Why are always protecting "The Rich"? Many, Many of them didn't earn a dime; they inherited it. I know lots of Ranchers, for example, who own hundreds of thousands of acres of land, who merely inherited it. Originally, it was "Claimed" (stolen, killed for, squatted on) in the 19th Century. How is that justified?
Jesus told the Rich man to sell what he had and give the money to the poor...sounds like re-distribution of wealth to me.
The rich are not creatting wealth for anybody but themselves. They are not creating jobs. True unemployment in the US is probably closer to 20% than 9%. If jobs are going overseas, it is the rich who are moving them...Why? To get richer.
In California, People of substance bought huge tracts of land for their houses, then lobbied to "stop the building" and "save our open space". They succeed because they are rich.
I am for a FREE market; you know, the one where everybody has a fair chance. Where a guy can earn a living by fishing without a $2 million boat. Where a farmer can sell his milk without the corporate-owned government arresting him. Right now, that doesn't exist; thanks to the rich.
America looks more like medieval England than the land of the free.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Longrifle, exactly what do you propose as a solution to the issues regarding the "rich" that you outline above?

Chief Joe

From WorldNetDaily - Criminal charges filed against Obama for forging his BC :

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305705

xbjllb

"I KNEW the X-lax had to be a Mormon! Now I understand everything!" - UG


AFAIK, Mormons cannot and will not make the claim that Jesus Christ is Lord of their lives, as their church is. Jesus Christ is Lord of my life, and I am not nor have I ever been Mormon. Not that I wouldn't vote for one, as long as he wasn't on the fascist side. Campaigned online quite heavily for Harry and Rory Reid.

Not that it matters, but I was raised Lutheran. Really Lutheran, meaning taking what Martin Luther accomplished very seriously.

It is well past time for another Reformation against Roman Catholicism and Worldwide Fundamentalism and Political Christianism and 95 Theses might not be enough.

 M/M

Rudy would be the best of the lot. At least he gets it on islam and on crime in general.

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 04:50 PM
__________________________

Love Rudy!

xbjllb

Ms. Crowley, if one is going to fight an enemy, one first has to know WHO that enemy is.

Obama, a radical? Please, the man is as bureaucratic a CIA bureaucrat as was ever created by the Agency. A balloon created with his own destruct zip cord; the issue of his eligibility for the Presidency in the first place.

As long as you fight impossible fascist fantasies about the man (Muslim! Hates America! Not one of us! Negro! Socialist! Communist!) instead of who and exactly what he is, you're part of the problem.

Obama has sold out the left far, far more than he has done any bit of harm to the right.

As would be expected, coming out of a highly right wing organization trying to correct itself after excising an almost fatal cancer: GHWBushCo, which liked to fight endless wars that could never be won (and fought purposely ineptly to maintain that "goal") to steal trillions from taxpayers.

CIAObamaCo. is a different Agency approach. While not in love with the general public, it is their task to protect them against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC, of which GHWBushCo. was indisputably the worst domestic attack and threat this country ever faced.

However, CIAObamaCo. is not democracy. The Agency obviously feels that Democracy got us into this fascist mess in the first place.

And they would be correct, except for one thing: CIAObamaCo. goes after the symptoms of the failure of Democracy, not the causes.

The causes are more difficult to fix, but not impossible:

1. Publicly fund elections. No private funding whatsoever especially politicians' own money. All lawbreakers and cheaters permanently banned from any political office for life.

2. Outlaw all lobbying with the same penalties. Outlaw political contributions and "political" "action" "committees".

3. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

Democracy would "right" itself fairly quickly.

One more thing to fix the economy:

4. Tax outsourcing at 98% with no loopholes and ban all foreign imports. Reassign all "drug war" law enforcement to black market enforcement.

5. Build a border wall to control, not stop, immigration, and give each wave a chance to fully assimilate. To that end, limit spanish broadcasting to one TV and one radio station in each major and minor market. End bilingual programs. America didn't institute them for Chinese, Italians, Swedes, Eastern European Jews, or any other wave of foreign immigration.

Numbers 4 and 5 would be quickly accomplished at the bequest of WE THE PEOPLE once all big money is out of politics forever with no loopholes and Congresspeople and the President once again WERE OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

xbjllb

Rudy was in the loop on 9-11. The lapdog trailing along behind GHWBushCo. begging for scraps.

The CIA will not let him get anywhere close to the White House.

Dgscol

So why is the scientific community still backing AGW (anthropogenic global warming), when AGW has become a laughing-stock and the proliferation of nuke plants throughout the third world is a hazard to everyone? Because for Dems, it is the reason for Cap and Trade, and that is the best way to fund Science in the near future.

Why doesn't Obama do what Reagan did busting up the Bell system? There are so many collusive practices and bailed-out, large global companies, they have control of product pricing. To decrease prices, he needs to bust up monopolies and foster competition, not vainly complain.

Chief Joe

We know-em HOW :

http://www.inc.com/ss/2010-inc-5000-top-10-companies-run-american-indians

We need-em chance.

jay

"" to cap and trade "

Cap and Trade was a Republican idea.

jay

Why are always protecting "The Rich"? Many, Many of them didn't earn a dime; they inherited it. I know lots of Ranchers, for example, who own hundreds of thousands of acres of land, who merely inherited it. Originally, it was "Claimed" (stolen, killed for, squatted on) in the 19th Century. How is that justified?
Jesus told the Rich man to sell what he had and give the money to the poor...sounds like re-distribution of wealth to me.
The rich are not creatting wealth for anybody but themselves. They are not creating jobs. True unemployment in the US is probably closer to 20% than 9%. If jobs are going overseas, it is the rich who are moving them...Why? To get richer.
In California, People of substance bought huge tracts of land for their houses, then lobbied to "stop the building" and "save our open space". They succeed because they are rich.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Because the rich spent millions buying politicians. hiring lobbyists to get the status they have now.
To go back to the 1% making 23% of the county's income.

Is it really necessary to spam this blog with liberal talking points? Especially with all the other serious matters going on in this country.

.


Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I've been saying about that same thing for weeks. Why with all the problems in this country. Why are there some on the memo who spend their time with the name bashing, insults, childish behavior and OPC.


jay

In California, People of substance bought huge tracts of land for their houses, then lobbied to "stop the building" and "save our open space". They succeed because they are rich.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM

60 minutes did a show where the rich can buy your home from under you. Just so they can use that land torwards building 1 of their 10000 sguare foot homes for themselves.

Chief Joe

We thought Bill Clinton was a DINO - but when his bro showed up with grocery bags he wanted us to fill, we thought he might be a Republican. Now we know he was just a crooked, cigar-chewing Dem.

jay

One aspect of that show was funny.
They showed where a person built the largest home in the neighborhood. His neighbor who had an older and smaller home felt upstaged so he added several 1000 feet to his home. So he could have the biggest! LOL!
Which shows what they consider to be the most important in life.

jay

"As if "the rich" became rich by sitting around, doing nothing, relaxing. As if the country "doesn't ask anything" of them, when they carry the vast majority of the tax burden. As if "the rich" spend all day eating bon bons and "counting their money"

Learned along time ago that the amount of money one has has NOTHING to do with how hard they worked.
As the saying goes,"The lil guy works hard for his money. The rich make money work for them."

Chief Joe

There were real Indians at the Boston Tea Party, you know, and some were just disguises.

gordon

Monica, Obama conned us all, but he is no different than Bush. I never hear you praising Bush for starting 2 wars and the Medicare Part D and tax cuts for the top, which put Obama in the hole. You are very attractive lately on Fox, but it doesn't make you right. Obama is aligned with the same power brokers, Banks, heath HMOs, Military War Profiteering. Since you think you are so smart, how many civilians died in Iraq? $180K? 500K? 650K? Why don't you give us proof. Oh, I forgot, it's the most dangerous place for journalists, and even the Red Cross can't find out. You never talk about the $ 2-4 TRILLION this has cost, incl Afghanistan, and including Vet care. Are you calling for a stop to worldwide (1500 bases) US military intervention and colonization? Obama saved the auto industry (so far) and I never hear you talk about the connection between the auto industry and military vehicles, but you profess to know so much, why the hell have you never pointed out the military war machine depends on GM and suppliers indirectly? Not true? The Federal Reserve injected $1.7 TRILLION indirectly into stocks, I guess you are ok with that, especially if Bush was in office? How come you never call for a stop to corrupt manipulation of the stock market, as in the Federal Reserve doing POMO operations, where they buy Treasuries, but not direct (they could walk across the street) but no, they but from JP Morgan of Goldman and pay a big commission, then loan them the money for 2 weeks, and they buy stocks, then repo the money or Treasuries back to the Fed, scalping profits. There is no real recovery because 60%+ of our economy became housing and related. That's over, done, finished. It's NOT coming back. We will become Japan, no more debt and consume. Face it. Exports will not fill that gap. Those of us who lost $20/hr + jobs will not work for $8/hr considering 45% is taken out in taxes and it's $50/week to drive to work. We will go underground. It's not Obama's doing. He can't fix it. So stop the piling on until you are out of a job too, soon.

mr. mystereo

1 party + 1 party does NOT = two

Ummahgummah


The writer Maya Angelou once said, "When somebody tells you who they are, believe them."


--

Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu once said: "When somebody tells you they want to kill you, believe them."

There, fixed it for Maya.

.

thebuckstopshere

UG, you fixed it good!


NO RINOS 2012

thebuckstopshere

loot & plunder........

at least this time it is not the private sector......

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/03/treasury-department-announces-plans-to-plunder-66-billion-from-federal-retirement-accounts-to-make-room-for-new-bond-issuance/

NO RINOS 2012

Ummahgummah

America looks more like medieval England than the land of the free.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Longrifle, exactly what do you propose as a solution to the issues regarding the "rich" that you outline above?

POSTED BY: MOLIBERTARIAN | JUNE 03, 2011 AT 08:36 PM

--

Longrifle has a point there, one that I ponder a lot myself. The age-old problem remains, how do you remedy this without making the situation worse than it was before?

Naturally, money buys power, pays for politicians, pays for laws benefitting those who pay for them etc., resulting in, for example, small farmers being harassed out of business on behalf of Monsanto, BASF etc..

There is to date no solution to this age-old problem.

If it weren't for the mental virus known as islam Mankind might possibly find a way to resolve this crucial issue.

Until we do, the United States of America is the ultimate and final bullwark protecting the world from islamist anarchy and mayhem.

At this time, islam and the inroads it is making into our Western Societies is preventing us from focusing on this vitally important problem.

On the one hand, the spirit and free exercise of entrepreneurial effort and will, with all the innovation it provides the whole must be restrained from undermining the free will of the electorate. At the same time the electorate must not be allowed to crash the system by voting itself whatever benefits it sees fit via promises given by feckless politicians who have nothing else in mind but attaining permanent status are quasi-rulers, no matter how benign their disguise.

Until this dilemma is even close to being solved, we cannot succumb to the facile seductions of benign dictatorship proffered by the likes of one Barack Hussein Obama.

The fact that the Left refuses to stand up to a totalitarian dogma like islam discredits their ideas regarding solutions.

Freedom is a higher principle than "economic justice".

Those who would sell out our own very freedoms to foreign interests are not qualified nor are they morally justified nor are they credible in whatever remedies they propose to offer.

I'll take my chances with fierce Nationalists and Capitalists until the time comes that other elements of thought are willing and able to cast off the yoke of hostile ideologies and religion.

Until they can credibly make the case that they have the interests of this particular Nation at heart first and foremost, liberals have nought to offer to the discourse.

Thus, THEY AND THEIR SUICIDAL IDEAS MUST BE VANQUISHED if we are to SURVIVE AS FREE PEOPLE.

.

MOLIBERTARIAN

I'll take my chances with fierce Nationalists and Capitalists until the time comes that other elements of thought are willing and able to cast off the yoke of hostile ideologies and religion.

Until they can credibly make the case that they have the interests of this particular Nation at heart first and foremost, liberals have nought to offer to the discourse.

Thus, THEY AND THEIR SUICIDAL IDEAS MUST BE VANQUISHED if we are to SURVIVE AS FREE PEOPLE..

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 04, 2011 at 01:05 AM

--------------------

Personally I prefer freedom from all economic and social tyranny. I would start by rounding up a few hundred lobbyists and Islamofascists and throwing them all into Alcatraz together. Might as well toss in a sampling of illegal immigrant employers as well. Let em have at each other and invite tourists and press to observe...

DJ

1 party + 1 party does NOT = two

Posted by: mr. mystereo | June 04, 2011 at 12:13 AM

--------------------

It all depends on what your definition of the number "2" is.
(Know what I'm sayin'? Get my drift?)


1 DEMONcrat Party + 1 Gooper Party DOES = NUMBER TWO

Time for a third party!

Palin and Trump agree with me. Does Gringoman?

DJ

"Monica,... [h]e is no different than Bush. [...] It's not Obama's doing. He can't fix it..." (--Gordon)

--------------------

Agree.

xbjllb

"Why are always protecting "The Rich"?" - Longrifle

Because the rich buy our congressmen and women. And our Presidents, prior to this one.

Because our current President is CIA. Then no rich have enough money to buy the President. They can only curry favor with the CIA by supporting him financially.

So far there's few smart rich in this country. Soros happens to be one of them. But then, he came from countries that were run by their intelligence services.

The Kochheads, on the other hand? Utterly clueless nouveau riche inherited money. Pissed away on a war against the CIA they will never win.

DJ

"Because the rich buy our congressmen and women. And our Presidents, prior to this one."

-------------------

This one has been bought too. The only politicians at the national level who have not been bought are those whom naturally support the ruling class's agenda (therefore no need to buy them). Those who buck the system will see their campaign donations dry up and or experience their reputations destroyed by the character assassins that work for the government media complex (MSM). Of course there are other ways the ruling class perpetuates and maintains control of the current system but the aforementioned are two key elements in their stratagem.

Liberator

From Politic:
"So, for some time, we've been waiting for Bachmann to come out and just say that she's running for president, but previously speculated-upon plans did not come to pass.

Now the signs that she will jump into the thick of the 2012 race continued to mount. She's been staffing up in the early states. Her chief of staff has taken a leave of absence so that he can work for Bachmann in "an exciting new position." And God Himself apparently finally decided, "Bachmann for President? Whoa, man, okay: I definitely want to see this."

Of course, there's also one obvious sign: she's going to be participating in the June 13th GOP debate in New Hampshire, and I'm pretty sure they don't let people who aren't running for president participate in those things.

Politico didn't know what to think of the possibility that two Mormons might run for president, so you can imagine that they find the prospect of two women doing it to be very shiny!

But you know what we've got no idea about yet? Whether or not Bachmann can pass the all-important litmus test of liking the Paul Ryan Medicare Plan that fewer and fewer people like with each passing day. Though one thing seems more certain: she probably does not like the Catholic Church, and could very well be of the belief that the Pope is the Anti-Christ:

When Bachmann was running for Congress in 2006, her official website bio said she was a member of the Salem Evangelical Lutheran Church of Stillwater, which belongs to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. WELS is one of the very conservative "confessional" Lutheran denominations that maintains that the "antichrist" is the pope. You know, the leader of the Catholic Church? That pope. WELS confirms that they still "identify this 'Antichrist' with the Papacy," in case you're curious.

Bachmann has denied that her church believes this, but ... it is definitely one of the fundamental doctrines of her church, according to her Synod's doctrinal statements. I mean, if Bachmann doesn't believe it, there are some very nice mainline Lutheran denominations to choose from, though they might be a bit squishy on biblical literalism and hatred of homosexuals.

This is probably nothing to worry about! We just wanted Bachmann to be properly and thoroughly vetted.

Anyway, Bachmann says that the Democrats are "terribly afraid of a Michele Bachmann candidacy for president of the United States," probably because she thinks "terribly afraid" actually means, "looking forward to with glee, and popping corn."

Ummahgummah

Personally I prefer freedom from all economic and social tyranny. I would start by rounding up a few hundred lobbyists and Islamofascists and throwing them all into Alcatraz together. Might as well toss in a sampling of illegal immigrant employers as well. Let em have at each other and invite tourists and press to observe...

POSTED BY: MOLIBERTARIAN | JUNE 04, 2011 AT 03:25 AM

--


I think that is what most if not all of the regs on the Memo prefer. The question still remains: How is it achieved?

As for the lobbyists and the jihadists I'd like to add a few hundred thousand lawyers to the mix plus the annoying liberals who keep infesting this blog with their nonsense.


.

gringoman

"I'm still waiting for socialist slogans less than a hundred years old." (--Gringoman)

-----------------------

Here's one:

"Diversity is our strength"

Posted by: DJ | June 03, 2011 at 06:12 PM

That's a multy-culty slogan, strictly speaking. It inspires Republicans too, as we see when George Bush places muslims at all levels of the US Government and military. Even the "conservative" NJ Governor Christie not only fired a man for burning the Koran, he also appointed a muslim to NJ Supreme Court, a "moderate" said to have jihadist ties.

If you want to loosen up and call "Diversity is our Strength" 'socialist,' then it can be traced as a paraphrase of "WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

Communist Manifesto Marx/Engels 1848

Liberator

THESE ARE THE FACTS

Running in the red: How the U.S., on the road to surplus, detoured to massive debt
By Lori Montgomery, Published: April 30

The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.

In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed.

Voices of caution were swept aside in the rush to take advantage of the apparent bounty. Political leaders chose to cut taxes, jack up spending and, for the first time in U.S. history, wage two wars solely with borrowed funds. “In the end, the floodgates opened,” said former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who chaired the Senate Budget Committee when the first tax-cut bill hit Capitol Hill in early 2001.

Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of this year. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S. history except for the period shortly after World War II.

Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years.

Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury.

Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added $719 billion — 6 percent of the total shift, according to the new analysis of CBO data by the nonprofit Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. All told, Obama-era choices account for about $1.7 trillion in new debt, according to a separate Washington Post analysis of CBO data over the past decade. Bush-era policies, meanwhile, account for more than $7 trillion and are a major contributor to the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits that are dominating the political debate.

As Congress prepares this week to launch a high-stakes battle over whether to raise the legal limit on borrowing, the analyses offer a clearer view of the drivers of the debt — and of the difficulty of re-balancing the budget without new tax revenue.

Most Republicans reject raising taxes as part of the solution; House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) has called it a “non-starter.” But Democrats won’t go for a proposal based solely on spending cuts. The“Gang of Six,” a bipartisan Senate group dedicated to debt reduction, is expected to unveil a strategy as soon as this week that couples sharp spending cuts with a rewrite of the tax code that would raise additional revenue.

(The debt ceiling, set at $14.3 trillion, covers all federal debt, including money the Treasury owes other federal entities, such as the Social Security trust fund. The CBO data focus on the portion of the debt borrowed from outside investors. The debt is the accumulation of annual deficits; if annual budgets are in surplus, the nation can pay down the debt.)

The annual surpluses that set the nation on this course emerged in the final years of the Clinton administration. In the typical American household, a surplus comes as welcome news. But the White House is not a typical household. When Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin saw the budget shift into the black in 1998, he immediately warned President Bill Clinton that, politically, it was a mixed blessing.

Rubin wanted to use the surplus to start repaying the debt, which was then just more than $3 trillion. The White House billed it as “saving Social Security first,” viewing the surplus as an opportunity to shore up the nation’s finances before huge numbers of the baby boom generation began claiming federal retirement benefits. “The problem was a whole other part of the political spectrum wanted to use the surplus for tax cuts,” Rubin said in an interview. “They said they wanted to give the people back their money. Of course, it was also the people’s debt.”

What to do with the surplus became a central issue of the 2000 presidential campaign, with Vice President Al Gore arguing that much of it should be put in a “lockbox” to protect Social Security and Medicare. Bush pushed for a broad tax cut, arguing that taxpayers at all income levels were owed a refund. “Some say that the growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend, but they’ve got it backwards,” Bush said as he accepted the GOP nomination in August 2000. “The surplus is not the government’s money. The surplus is the people’s money.”

As soon as he took office, Bush pushed Congress to make good on his tax pledge. Less than a week after his inauguration, he got a boost from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who testified before the Senate Budget Committee that “tax reduction appears required” to prevent the federal government from accumulating too much cash. Greenspan feared that large surpluses would turn the government into the nation’s largest investor, creating distortions in the markets.

A chorus of skeptics warned against spending the surplus. Some stressed the inherent uncertainty of the CBO projections. Others said a big tax cut would unleash pent-up desire in both parties to pursue expensive priorities without the pay-as-you-go restraints that had helped produce the surplus.

Congress approved a $1.35 trillion tax cut in record time. A second package, worth $350 billion, followed in 2003. Together, they constituted one of the largest tax cuts since World War II, according to the conservative Tax Foundation.

Bush’s first Treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, resigned after the White House decided to pursue the 2003 measure. “I believed we needed the money to facilitate fundamental tax reform and begin working on unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare,” O’Neill said in an interview. But the White House, he said, was focused on improving economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2004. “They wanted to make sure economic conditions were great going into the president’s reelection.”

Proponents of tax cuts argue that the legislation merely returned tax collections to their appropriate levels. They note that the CBO’s 2001 forecast assumed that tax collections would stay above 20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (defined as the total of all economic output) — well above the historic average of 18 percent of GDP.

“It’s not obvious that America was ready to have taxes at a level this high persistently,” said Donald Marron, a former CBO director who now heads the nonprofit Tax Policy Center. “Some degree of tax cutting was inevitable.”

But some key advocates of the tax cuts now say such a large reduction was probably ill-advised.

“Nobody would have thought that all these things would have happened after you cut taxes,” Domenici said. “That you’d have two wars and not pay for them. That you’d have another recession. A huge extravaganza of expenditures” for the military and homeland security after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “You would pause before you did it, if you knew.”

Bill Thomas, the former House Ways and Means Committee chairman who helped shepherd the tax cuts through Congress, defended the 2003 package as “fuel for the economy.” But he said in an interview that the 2001 measure was larded with “stuff that I was not all that wild about,” including bipartisan priorities such as a big increase in the child tax credit and a break for married couples — provisions Thomas believes did little to promote economic growth and amounted to “throwing money out the window.”

“I couldn’t do anything about it,” said Thomas, a California Republican who retired in 2006. “You’re the candy man when you advocate those kinds of tax cuts.”

In the end, Bush cut taxes and spent more money. Good times masked the impact, as surging tax revenues reduced the size of year-to-year deficits during the first three years of his second term. But after the economy collapsed during Bush’s final year in office, deficits — and therefore the debt — began to explode as Obama sought to revive economic activity with more tax cuts and federal spending.

Today, the CBO forecasts are unrelievedly gloomy, showing huge deficits essentially forever. As policymakers grapple with the legacy of the past decade, a demographic wave of senior citizens is crashing at their doorstep, driving up the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

William Hoagland, who was for years a top budget aide to Domenici and other GOP Senate leaders, said it is simplistic to think today’s fiscal problems began just 10 years ago. In 1976, as a young CBO analyst, Hoagland produced a long-term simulation that showed entitlement costs gradually overwhelming the rest of the federal budget.

“This situation really goes back to long before [the Bush administration], which is to say to old dead men that have long left the Congress,” he said.

Still, Hoagland said, the abandonment of fiscal discipline in the wake of the surpluses clearly didn’t help. “Nobody pushed for paying for this stuff,” he said. Not even after “it became very clear in the middle of 2003 that the line had turned on us. And the surpluses as far as the eye could see were no longer there.”

gringoman

Monica, Obama conned us all, but he is no different than Bush. I never hear you praising Bush for starting 2 wars and the Medicare Part D and tax cuts for the top, which put Obama in the hole. You are very attractive lately on Fox, but it doesn't make you right.


Posted by: gordon | June 04, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Sir, are you suggesting that our Monica Crowley is Club Gooper's Hostess with the Mostess?

Ummahgummah

Here's one:

"Diversity is our strength"

Posted by: DJ | June 03, 2011 at 06:12 PM

That's a multy-culty slogan, strictly speaking. It inspires Republicans too, as we see when George Bush places muslims at all levels of the US Government and military. Even the "conservative" NJ Governor Christie not only fired a man for burning the Koran, he also appointed a muslim to NJ Supreme Court, a "moderate" said to have jihadist ties.

If you want to loosen up and call "Diversity is our Strength" 'socialist,' then it can be traced as a paraphrase of "WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

Communist Manifesto Marx/Engels 1848

POSTED BY: GRINGOMAN | JUNE 04, 2011 AT 11:23 AM

--

They were running "diversity is strength" advertising on WABC this morning. I almost puked before I fell back asleep.

.

gringoman

gringoNOTE: The following is not--repeat--not from the Mitt Romneycare Joke Book. It's from REUTERS...


- Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-campaign-romney-idUSTRE7525GM20110603

Ummahgummah

.

LUCK FIBERALS!

What the EFF are these trolls posting here for?

.

Ummahgummah

.

when a LIEberal posts on a Conservative blog and noone reads her post, does the post really exist?

Or is it a waste of energy?

A LIEberal post here is nought but excess CO2 released as the malodorous by-product of mental flatulence.

.

Ummahgummah

- Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/03/us-campaign-romney-idUSTRE7525GM20110603

POSTED BY: GRINGOMAN | JUNE 04, 2011 AT 12:12 PM

--

McRomney!

.

Ummahgummah

.

Gringoman, it's as if they are taunting us, daring us to GO ROGUE and start a Third Party.

Maybe they need to focus their energies not against US but rather on defeating the RATS in 2012.

They also need to explain WHY they want to remove the Bama from the White House.

So far we haven't heard anything but Gooper platitudes.

.

DJ

"I'm still waiting for socialist slogans less than a hundred years old." (--Gringoman)

-----------------------

Here's one:

"Diversity is our strength"

Posted by: DJ | June 03, 2011 at 06:12 PM

That's a multy-culty slogan, strictly speaking. It inspires Republicans too, as we see when George Bush places muslims at all levels of the US Government....

Posted by: gringoman | June 04, 2011 at 11:23 AM

-----------------------

Yes, but multiculturalism, neo-egalitarianism, postmodernism, modern-liberalism, radical feminism etc are all essential components of Global-Socialism, no?

Ummahgummah

.

Oh boy! Monica is GOOPERING IN FULL FORCE!!! she is promoting the GOOPER PREMIERE CLASSE Imam Chris Christie!!!

Not just NO

BUT HELL NO!!!!!!!!

.

Ummahgummah

.

If doughboy CC is the candidate FORGET IT. Worse then McRomney!

.

Ummahgummah

.

than

.

DJ

I can detect CC has some serious character defects. They have yet to surface but surely will during a protracted presidential campaign. They will surface in an ugly painfully embarrassing way, I'm afraid. Hence, CC needs to stay right where he is.

Ummahgummah

.

DJ, I agree. Why is he so shy to run in what is a completely uninspiring FIELD OF QUEENS so far?

Does he have a moslem skeleton in his closet? I wonder what he got paid for that NJ judgeship he sold to the jihadist.

.

The comments to this entry are closed.