Posted by Yet Another Teacher, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Jul 30, 2011 at 4:01 am
Hm, a quick glance at the chart shows that Bush, with the aid of the Republican-controlled Congress, wasted $2.9 trillion on tax cuts for the rich and the futile wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What's really interesting is that the Republicans in the House, such as Boehner and Ryan, who are crying about Obama's "reckless" spending, cast their votes for the two biggest additions to the deficit, the tax cuts and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And here's more information, The Five Biggest Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts:
"5. Continuing the tax cuts won't doom the long-term fiscal picture; entitlements are the real problem.
One theory holds that the country's long-term budget shortfall is "just" an entitlements problem, the result of rising costs associated with growing Social Security rolls and increased health-care spending (via Medicare and Medicaid). Republicans like this idea because it plays down tax increases as a potential solution. Democrats like it because it makes the recent health-care package seem like even more of a triumph.
But it just isn't true. The deficits we face over the next decade reflect a fundamental imbalance between spending and revenue, one that goes beyond entitlements. Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That's already the highest rate since just after World War II -- and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren't expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020.
According to these same projections, the yearly deficit would rise to 6 to 7 percent of GDP by 2020. The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP."
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Ruby Hill neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2011 at 6:15 am
Don't believe any of this! I know for a fact that Dems tax us, and Repubs bail us out of Dems fishcally irresponsible behavior. Dems cause unemployment, Repubs give us jobs. Obama is a tyrant who wants to spend us into oblivion.
Do not believe that graph. YAT is a socialist. YAT is a union thug. The graph is a fig of her exaggeration. Read the Washngton Times, watch Fox News. YAT cannot be trusted. YAT probably stands to gain from Obama's reckless healthcare policies, otherwise he/she wouldn't be posting these terrible lies.
Posted by Louis Althusser, a resident of another community, on Jul 30, 2011 at 7:34 am
YAT, the right-wingers here in and around Pleasanton are immune to reason. Once they accept an ideological dogma, there is no set of facts,no amount of contrary evidence that will sway them. Our only hope as a nation is that sane people will recognize this and relegate them back to the fringes of society where they can speak in tongues and play with snakes to their hearts' content without endangering the rest of us.
Posted by Yet Another Teacher, a member of the Hart Middle School community, on Jul 30, 2011 at 7:54 am
I'm not trying to convince the Tea Partiers. They are truly immune to any "fact" not fed to them by Fox News. I'm trying to give knowledge to reasonable people so they can know the truth about what's happening in our country. That's what educators do!
If Obama was mainly responsible for the deficit, I'd say that, too. I voted for him but I'm not a party drone; I think for myself.
As for the comments in the Pleasanton Weekly: half of the looney right-wing Tea Partying John Birching comments are parodies and the other half are in earnest.
Posted by Holden , a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2011 at 8:55 am
One of the underlying causes of our global economic meltdown was our incredible notion that real estate would appreciate forever, without end, infinitely. The world banks including ours bought into it. The only ones who won were the Goldman Sachs of the world who "shorted" (bet against the myth of infinite appreciation). I'm no blaming Goldman, but without the "real estate myth" there would have been no need for stimulus.
Posted by Holden , a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2011 at 8:59 am
By the way, if you want to hear the funniest comedy bit on the real estate bust you have to go to Comedy Square and listen to the Infinite Real Estate Boom >> Web Link ... it's a hoot. One of my friends produces it.
Posted by Blossom, a resident of the Stoneridge Orchards neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:25 am
Say, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were on account of the majority Democrats wanting to go to war. Bush didn't want to, especially after he saved us from 9/11 that occurred under Clinton's watch.
Same thing with the tax breaks for the rich. Bush didn't want to do that, but Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi said it was the only way we could save social security. See, those graphs don't tell the whole story.
I'm and independant but no way I'll vote for Obama with all his warmongaring and excessive tax on my husband's tanning salon.
Posted by Hoops, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Blossom you need to actually read some unbiased articles or listen to somebody besides Rush L because you have no idea of what you are talking about.This is the problem with the country.People get an uneducated belief from listening over and over to one point of view which is not based on facts.Right wing radio and fox are such bs that it is an embarrasment to the country.The left has its share of wackos but nothing compares to the right wing propaganda machine and the very selfish very rich people who fund it.
Posted by steve, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:11 am
Someone is promoting fudged numbers just to exonerate theri messiah from any responsibility for the financial mess we're in.
Just the healthcare cost alone is way understated, based on this research from no less than a respected member of the loonie left media establishment: Web Link
But don't bother yourself with reading the whole article, lest you tax your brain (there's that tax word again). Here's an excerpt for you obama apologists: "Congressional Democrats have released a final version of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul bill in advance of a House vote planned for Sunday. Some of the main features of the legislation, which makes changes to the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve:
COST: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office."
That's just one flaw with your attempt to absolve obama from any responsibility--how about the fact that he continues the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya even after he promised to bring our troops home---who is paying for that and why isn't in the Post's 'projections'.
Nice try, YAT. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I hate to break it to you (again) but Bush is not in office--Obama is and he's a worthless amateur. We need a leader.....it's not him.
Posted by Bob, a resident of the Ruby Hill neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 9:47 am
That's what I say. Don't bother reading. I'm sure the numbers are fuudged because they don't agree with my warped view of the world. Stop reading! Most everything out there is a liberal socialist elititest plot to sabataje your mind.
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 1, 2011 at 10:00 am
YAT - What point are you trying to make by posting this analysis?
Let's ignore for a moment that I can post another analysis from a more credible source that paints a different picture, because I surely don't want to defend Bush. Both Bush's policies and Obama's policies have been detrimental to this country's financial well-being.
Are you suggesting that because Obama is not as bad a Bush, that it is OK to continue down our current financial path? What are you suggesting/recommending?
Posted by SteveP, a resident of the Parkside neighborhood, on Aug 2, 2011 at 10:06 am SteveP is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
YAT only wants the Dems to stay in control because they only have her best interests at heart. With obama running the country (into the ground) she'll be able to move to Pleasanton and default on a new home like many of her high risk compatriots.
Anyway, the Post article completely ignores that Congress authorizes funding and with Dems running the show in Congress for many of the years listed in their 'analysis', their partisan finger pointing at Republicans is disingenuous at best.