«   |   »

Republicans Killed American Exceptionalism

by Ben Hoffman

Because of Republicans, we’re laggards in high-speed rail and renewable energy technology. Bush killed the space shuttle replacement as one of his first acts as president. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Republicans are trying to kill the James Webb Space Telescope – the replacement for the Hubble. Most Republicans don’t value science. They’re told to believe that global warming is a hoax, so that’s what they believe. Many don’t even believe in evolution. They believe the explanations concocted by people two thousand years ago about how we got here.

Remember American exceptionalism? We were the first to go faster than the speed of sound. We’re the only nation that has gone to the moon. From technology developed as part of the space program came PCs and other electronics. We have great national parks and wilderness areas. We created the Internet. We built the Panama canal. Those are all government funded projects that right-wingers refer to as “socialism.” Now all that matters is profits and low taxes.

And worst of all, we’re in the midst of the greatest economic slump since the Great Depression, and rather than do things to stimulate the economy and bring jobs back to America, Republicans are gutting government projects that are — without a doubt — increasing unemployment. Republicans have also blocked bills that would have brought manufacturing jobs back to America.

Republicans killed American exceptionalism.

Posted on August 19, 2011 at 12:00 AM in Economy, Opinion, Politics, U.S. News   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

36 Comments to “Republicans Killed American Exceptionalism”

    
  1. Really Unreal
    August 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM

    There’s a reason – Republicans don’t believe in science or facts. They only believe in what the Bible says. And since there is no space shuttle or walking on the moon or Mars or advances in medicine and science because of the space program in the Bible, they can’t be bothered with it. Yet they benefit from microwaves to cook in, cell phones, velcro, computers and advances in medicine as well as flame proof pj’s for their kids all things that came out of the space program. Republicans have very short attention spans and seem to forget that a ton of what we have today never would be possible if we didn’t invent these things as part of the space program. They want to spend money on big boats and jets and vacation villas and have their millionaire buddies “create jobs” (lol – yeah pool boy and valet parking jobs) as long as it’s not something to do with stupid science. That is unless of course is has something to do with pharmaceuticals or the oil industry where they can rape us for it, then that’s ok.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM

      True, and they have these simple-minded lower middle-class right-wingers brainwashed into supporting policies that are bad for the middle class. Read some of the posts by CB and Alan Scott. You know they’re lower middle class, yet they’re adamantly apposed to bills that would actually help them and their neighbors.

      Reply
      • CB
        August 22, 2011 at 2:50 PM

        You know they’re lower middle class…

        Well, what you think you “know” is simply incorrect, but that’s never stopped you before.

        … yet they’re adamantly apposed to bills that would actually help them and their neighbors.

        Because they won’t help meor my neighbors, your braying to the contrary notwithstanding. LESS Governent would be a big help, not MORE. Now I am not an anarchist, so don’t go off half-cocked with this “CB is anti-government” nonsense. Ijust think it should be kept in the cage known as the Consititution, like any dangerous, ravenous beast should be caged. And I don’t think it’s the answer to all problems, like you liberals apparently do. I believe that, in general, private individuals are better at solving problems than collectivist bureaucracies are.

  2. Alan Scott
    August 20, 2011 at 8:53 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    My ears were ringing, so I knew you mentioned me . You are right I am lower middle class. Unlike some I did not marry into money . And you are also right about bills that would help me in some ways . I just would rather work for my money than get a hand out from the Democrats . I don’t have much pride, but I have more than that .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 20, 2011 at 9:32 PM

      Ah, ha! So you admit it’s all about emotion. I didn’t marry into money either, but I was able to go to college with the help of government grants, scholarships, and loans. And because I earn a lot more now than I did before going to college, the government investment in me has paid off probably 20x because of the greater taxes I now pay. That’s an investment in our country.

      Reply
  3. Alan Scott
    August 21, 2011 at 6:14 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    I can see why you are for the Government taking money from one group and giving it to their friends . You are one of the friends . Let’s see, what was I doing at 10 PM ? Well I’m not a night owl. I was at home then , but earlier I was out taking my pitiful ” lower middle ” class wages that I literally earned by the sweat of my brow, I work outside , and took my wife out for a meal. I was stimulating the pitiful Obama economy . It needs it . Funny how my ” lower middle ” class wages do not go very far any more . Wish I had listened to Glen Beck and bought gold . Boy did he call that right .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 21, 2011 at 9:55 AM

      You are one of the friends .

      Yep, I took advantage of financial aid to build a better life. I’ve paid that money back some 20 times.

      I literally earned by the sweat of my brow, I work outside

      I used to work outside when I was in my 20s (in Houston, no less), but I knew that I didn’t want to be doing that when I was in my 40s, so I took action and went to college. Because of conservative policies, the cost of higher education is now out of reach for many people — even with financial aid.

      Wish I had listened to Glen Beck and bought gold .

      Nobody has ever become successful by “wishing.” It takes hard work, and it’s not the “sweat of your brow” work. Most of that kind of work is now done by immigrants.

      Reply
  4. Alan Scott
    August 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    ” Because of conservative policies, the cost of higher education is now out of reach for many people — even with financial aid. ”

    You know at the serious risk of angering you and having you delete me, I will refute you on this . You tell me why colleges constantly raise their prices above the rate of inflation ? My answer is government money . You guys send all of my tax money to the great alter of education . Guaranteed money to the great Universities . What do they do ? They raise the salaries of their Professors. They sure do not raise the salaries of the lower middle class peons who do the maintenance and cut the grass. And they raise their prices . Businesses that compete with one another control their cost structure or they fail . Colleges are almost Government departments .

    I do not have a problem with Colleges paying a really good Professor big enough bucks to make them a target of your class warfare. It is just hard to measure who is worth that kind of money . A close relative who recently got his Masters degree told me how it works . Professor Big Bucks does not actually teach. He lives on research grants . Masters students and Assistant non tenured Professors teach the undergrads . Seems to me that if you made Professor Big Bucks actually teach and paid him what the Masters Students make, just maybe lower middle class parents such as myself could afford college for our kids without Government help and the kids would come out of college knowing something .

    And while I am ranting let me tell you that President Obama taking over the college loan programs 2 years ago really screwed things up . The last 2 years my kid’s paper work has been really screwed up . I had far less BS when the evil banks ran it .

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 21, 2011 at 12:20 PM

      Alan, your class warfare is destroying our country. You’d like to see a country where only the rich can get an education. You have no problem with the tremendous income disparity we currently have in America. There’s a direct correlation between the rich getting richer and the massive federal debt increases.

      It takes a lot of time and money to become a professor, and that doesn’t make them good teachers or even good researchers, but the only people who can become professors are those from well-off families. Otherwise, they wind up deep in debt.

      So should they get paid the exorbitant salaries? I’m not sure, but if everyone was on a level playing field, their salaries would come down. If scholarship was based more on merit than money, we’d have much better faculty at our universities. But that means “SOCIALISM!”

      Reply
  5. Alan Scott
    August 21, 2011 at 4:59 PM

    Mr. Hoffman ,

    I disagree with you, but I appreciate your honest answer .

    Reply
  6. CB
    August 26, 2011 at 6:55 AM

    Because of Republicans, we’re laggards in high-speed rail and renewable energy technology.

    You seriously think running electric trains or having lots of windmill farms is what makes a country “exceptional”? Really? It’s rather evident that you do not have a clue what American exceptionalism is or means.

    What makes America exceptional is not her technologies, inventions, interstate highways or even her Government. No, what makes America exceptional are the principles on which she was founded, that all men are created equal, that they have the inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. What makes her exceptional is the fact that, more so than in any other society in history, anyone can achieve their dreams, regardless of their status in society. That is why people come to America from all over the world, because they rightly see her as the best available environment in which to succeed.

    What makes America exceptional are her people, unshackled by Government to pursue their dreams, individualism, the “can-do” spirit that doesn’t rely on Government to solve problems. What makes her exceptional is not her Government or Government programs.

    Why are you liberals so infatuated with pie-in-the-sky boondoggles like high-speed rail and so-called “renewable” energy? Why can’t you simply allow the marketplace to work, rather than forcing your pipe-dream visions into it? If there were truly a market for high-speed rail in the USA, don’t you think some selfish, greedy, profit-seeking entrepreneur wouldn’t have already taken steps to tap that market? Maybe, just maybe, the entrepreneurs in America have already looked at the issue and simply decided that high-speed rail isn’t cost-effective, which is to say, there simply is no market. Unless you can make high-speed rail travel cheaper, more convenient and more advantageous than buses, highways and/or regional air travel, people simply won’t bother using it.

    Do you plan on building all-new railroad lines to accommodate these shiny new bullet trains? That’ll get real expensive real fast, and, as I recall, you guys were whining and sniveling about our deficits. Use existing rail? Well, great, but that will displace a lot of that unsexy, hum-drum freight rail traffic, and our national freight rail system is indeed a bright spot in our economy. Freight rail is very cost-effective and green, having a much lower carbon footprint than, say, trucking or other possible alternatives. Placing high-speed passenger trains on that rail will displace freight trains and ultimately drive up the cost of rail shipping.

    So why risk ruining something that currently works beautifully (freight rail) for a pipe-dream that may or may not ever be cost-effective?

    Similar arguments apply to your so-called “renewable” energy. The simple fact is that a pound of oil or coal or natural gas simply provides more energy than a pound of solar cells or batteries. Until and unless you can reverse that, so-called “renewable” energy won’t be cost-effective. Furthermore, how would you propose to power a jet airplane (for example) with “renewable” solar or wind energy? And even electric cars have to plug in to a wall outlet to recharge, and often, that electricity is being produced by burning coal or oil, because again, fossil fuels simply produce more energy pound-for-pound. And your electric cars still have a ridiculously short range between recharges, making them simply unfeasible for certain tasks.

    Again, just allow the marketplace to work. Allow some driven individual to tackle some of the problems and develop a technology that overcomes them. Let some modern day Wright brother or Thomas Edison first see a need for it, then develop a battery that weighs 50 pounds, is recharged by sunlight but can deliver 100 amps of power for 72 hours before needing a recharge, for example. And let him reap the financial rewards for developing it. You see, that is the American way, not relying on some Government bureaucracy to figure everything out for you.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 26, 2011 at 10:42 AM

      Well, great, but that will displace a lot of that unsexy, hum-drum freight rail traffic, and our national freight rail system is indeed a bright spot in our economy.

      Our current rail system was built by our government.

      Reply
  7. CB
    August 27, 2011 at 9:51 AM

    Our current rail system was built by our government.

    Irrelevant, because freight rail in the US is currently a private enterprise, run by privately-owned railroads, which is why rail shipping is profitable. Amtrak, otoh, constantly operates in the red, and Amtrak’s CEO, David Gunn, told Congress that Amtrak would NEVER be profitable.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM

      So what? Our military isn’t profitable, either, so I guess we should do away with it. The postal service isn’t profitable so I guess we shouldn’t have our mail delivered. Our national parks aren’t profitable, nor are our highways, police, fire departments, and many other things that just exist for the good of our country. But you right-wingers hate our country, so you hate things that make our country better.

      Reply
  8. CB
    August 27, 2011 at 8:57 PM

    Try to keep in mind that we are talking about the Federal Government, and that there is this thing called the Constitution…

    Our military isn’t profitable, either, so I guess we should do away with it.

    Wrong. The Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to raise an Army, Navy, etc., and it is the Federal Government’s job to protect our people from foreign invasion.

    The postal service isn’t profitable so I guess we shouldn’t have our mail delivered.

    In this day and age, with e-mail, text messaging, cell phones and so forth, there is less and less need for the U.S. Postal Service. Plus, we do have free-market competitors such as FedEx and DHL. Besides, it seems that most of what I get in my mail box is junk mail anyway, which ends up killing trees and being land fill. I thought you liberals were into this whole “green” thing. Well, eliminating the U.S. Postal Service could have a significant positive impact in that area, not to mention the cost savings.

    Our national parks aren’t profitable, nor are our highways, police, fire departments, and many other things that just exist for the good of our country.

    But you are assuming, without any real evidence to support your assumption, that high-speed rail and “green” energy are “good for the country”, and frankly, I don’t believe they are. Just the opposite, in fact.

    Some of those things you mention are run by State and local governments, and we are talking about the Federal government. Like I have said before, I am not “anti-government”. I just believe in keeping Government in its cage, whether we’re talking about the U.S. Constitution or the various State Constitutions.

    That being said, you are on the right track; a lot of Federal bureaucracies could and should be shut down forever, as they are soaking up tax-payer dollars and giving us shit (in the form of red tape and bureaucracy, but little actual service) in return.

    But you right-wingers hate our country, so you hate things that make our country better.

    Why do you have to be such a big baby all the time? And do you seriously believe all these Government programs make our country better? Really?

    Boondoggles don’t make our country better. Just the opposite. But you liberals seem to love anything that gives Government more power, more control over our daily lives. That is hatred for our country, my friend. You see, our country is based on the concept of personal freedom. Can’t have that when Government has all the power. You liberals tend to forget that the first three words of the U.S. Constitution are “We The People”.

    High-speed rail and “green” energy are boondoggles. Throwing shitloads of taxpayer money into those black holes won’t make our country better. Letting the marketplace work will. Letting us drill for oil and natural gas will. Letting us build nukes will. You want us less dependent on foreign oil? Let us use our own! And our natural gas, and shale deposits. Let us build nukes. All of that would make us less dependent on foreign oil, but you liberals stand in the way. I guess you liberals hate our country, using your own logic.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      August 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM

      Wrong. The Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to raise an Army, Navy, etc., and it is the Federal Government’s job to protect our people from foreign invasion.

      There is nothing in our Constitution that provides for a standing army, and in fact, our founding fathers warned against the dangers of a standing militia in times of peace. The Second Amendment covers national security in that given the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia, that is what would comprise our military (along with a navy). Therefore, according to your logic that the federal government shouldn’t do anything not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, we need to disband our military. (The “war on terror” is not a “war” that’s fought with a traditional army — it’s fought with intelligence.) There is also nothing mentioned about an air force, so I guess we need to do away with that, too.

      As far as the Post Office, the Constitution explicitly states that it is the responsibility of the federal government “To establish Post Offices and Post Roads,” so if you’re against the Post Office, you’re against our Constitution.

      Reply
      • CB
        August 28, 2011 at 9:35 AM

        Therefore, according to your logic that the federal government shouldn’t do anything not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, we need to disband our military.

        From Article 1, Section 8:

        The Congress shall have Power…

        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        So while you may have a valid point regarding a “standing” army, your claim is otherwise shown to be preposterous, given that the term “military” includes the Navy and temporary armies.

        …if you’re against the Post Office, you’re against our Constitution.

        I never suggested getting rid of the Post Office, chief, and in fact, the one who stated, “we shouldn’t have our mail delivered”, was you, not me.

        But all you are doing here is moving goal posts. Whether or not a given existing Government agency is profitable is really not the issue. The issue is: do we want to saddle taxpayers with even MORE money pit boondoggle programs than we already have? ESPECIALLY when there is no Constitutional support for them? ESPECIALLY during tough economic times?

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM

        The issue is: do we want to saddle taxpayers with even MORE money pit boondoggle programs than we already have? ESPECIALLY when there is no Constitutional support for them? ESPECIALLY during tough economic times?

        Funny how you right-wingers pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you want upheld. Bush clearly violated the Constitution when he invaded Iraq but you don’t have a problem with that, even though it cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. And this is exactly the time when we should be investing in infrastructure because it will create jobs and we’ll have a better transportation system when we’re finished. Tax cuts do nothing but drive up the debt.

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 7:55 AM

        Funny how you right-wingers pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you want upheld. Bush clearly violated the Constitution when he invaded Iraq but you don’t have a problem with that, even though it cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars.

        No, what’s funny is how you liberal insist on moving goal posts when losing an argument, and always seem to end up falling back on your Bush-hate talking points in the process. What is also funny is how you persist in telling me what I do or don’t “have a problem with”.

        The legality (or lack thereof) of the Iraq War is not the issue at hand. American Exceptionalism is the issue. Whether the War in Iraq was legal is something that will be debated by scholars and historians for decades, in all likelihood, and even the Courts couldn’t make a clear-cut decision at the time. If Bush violated the Constitution, then so did Congress when they passed the Resolution on Iraq in October 2002, including the 82 Democrat Congressmen and 29 Democrat Senators who voted in favor of it. That Resolution claims that the President has Constitutional authority to use military force against terrorism. So, while I am confident that to Bush-haters like you, it is indeed “clear” that Bush violated the Constitution to invade Iraq, the issue is not really so cut-and-dried. If it turns out that the Constitution was indeed violated, I will indeed “have a problem with” it, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

        But, back to the issue at hand…

        And this is exactly the time when we should be investing in infrastructure because it will create jobs and we’ll have a better transportation system when we’re finished.

        I can agree that “we should be investing in infrastructure”, but again, high-speed rail is a boondoggle which will not provide us with “a better transportation system”, only a more expensive one. If you want to “invest” in infrastructure, fine. We can rebuild and repair existing roads, interstates and bridges. We can drill for oil, which can provide us with asphalt for doing those jobs, and fuel to power the various machines used in road construction and repair. Those two things will indeed go a long way toward reviving the economy. Letting our existing roads and bridges continue to wither while building flashy new train systems is not the answer.

        That being said, I believe I can see the appeal of letting existing road wither and building shiny new electric trains run by the Government. “Roads” mean “cars”, which means “freedom”. Freedom to choose your own schedule and route. Relying on Government trains is the opposite. You have to rely on the Government’s schedule and routing. No wonder you liberals are in favor of it. Anything to get rid of that pesky “freedom” crap.

        Tax cuts do nothing but drive up the debt.

        Wrong, chief. I have already provided data which proves you wrong. What drives up debt is excessive spending, not tax cuts. But, being a tax-and-spend Big Government liberal, you will never be able to see that.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 29, 2011 at 8:17 AM

        So, while I am confident that to Bush-haters like you

        To little right-wing sheep like yourself, you’d defend these bastards against anything. Look at the damage done to our country during the Bush years: a near doubling of the debt thanks to reckless tax cuts and war profiteering, the politicization of our justice department, two wars that will wind up costing us some 6 trillion dollars that killed 100s of thousands of innocent people and thousands of American soldiers, and the near total destruction of our economy. By defending Bush and his cronies, it’s obvious that you love the Republican party far more than you love our country.

        That being said, I believe I can see the appeal of letting existing road wither and building shiny new electric trains run by the Government. “Roads” mean “cars”, which means “freedom”.

        You’re an idiot. High speed trains aren’t going to replace cars. Or “take away your freedoms.” You just don’t have the ability to comprehend even simple issues, and you have strong opinions based purely on emotion. High speed rail will be an alternative to planes. Comprende? Or maybe you never leave your trailer park so you have no idea how much it sucks to use the airlines.

        Wrong, chief. I have already provided data which proves you wrong

        No you didn’t. You cherry picked data to show some correlation. That’s not proof of anything except that you’re a sheep who defends your political party no matter what. The Republican party is like a religion to you, and you are one of the flock.

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM

        Well, again, you liberals end up abandoning reasoned argument in favor of emotionalism, which is not surprising in the least.

        …you’d defend these bastards against anything…

        “Bastards”? See what I mean? You are so full of irrational hate that you simply cannot think clearly. I am not defending anyone, and I have already tacitly conceded that the Constitution may have been violated. That I don’t immediately jump to the conclusion you think I should jump to is of no consequence — if the Courts couldn’t make a decision, what qualifies me to pronounce judgement? On the other hand, I am already on record as being critical of Bush’s spending and Government expansion, so your claim that I would “defend these bastards against anything” is already proven to be wrong.

        Not proven to you, of course. One cannot prove anything to a closed mind.

        High speed trains aren’t going to replace cars.

        Now there is something we can agree on.

        Or “take away your freedoms.” You just don’t have the ability to comprehend even simple issues, and you have strong opinions based purely on emotion.

        Such delightful irony, given your demonstration that you didn’t actually comprehend anything I wrote. All I am saying is, if we have a fixed amount of money (which we do, your idiotic idea that the “rich” are a bottomless pit of tax money notwithstanding) we need to choose carefully what to spend it on. I am saying that repairing our existing roads and bridges is a better investment than high-speed rail, simply because it would end up serving more people, and would therefore be more cost-effective. Throwing money at a boondoggle just because you want to be “more like Europe” or whatever, is a waste of money, and if the choice comes down to one or the other, cars do represent more actual freedom than dependence on Government trains.

        Talk about an inability to comprehend…

        High speed rail will be an alternative to planes.

        Such is the claim, but it has yet to be shown that high-speed rail would provide any kind of advantage that would make it more attractive than air travel.

        Or maybe you never leave your trailer park so you have no idea how much it sucks to use the airlines.

        Interesting how you “compassionate”, “for the little guy” liberals always seem fall back on your “trailer park” theme to use as an insult. What this tells me is that you are indeed a bunch of elitists. Be that as it may, I have never lived in a trailer park, and I do fly often enough to know first-hand how much air travel sucks. I also realize that the TSA is now invading train and bus stations, so explain how high-speed rail would necessarily be any better than air travel.

        Who knows? Maybe one of the goals of the TSA is to drive people away from privately held airlines and toward Government run train systems…

        You cherry picked data to show some correlation.

        What I showed was that tax cuts result in higher revenues than tax hikes, using data that was not “cherry-picked” in the slightest. I simply used the raw revenue numbers from the Office of Management and Budget, and simply provided the numbers for each year from 1993 through 2010. Since you are claiming that I “cherry-picked” the numbers, the onus is on you to explain how showing every number from 1993 through 2010 constitutes “cherry-picking”.

        Of course, I did provide data, something you liberals consistently fail to do, and it wouldn’t matter what I provided, you can always call it “cherry-picked”, thereby shielding yourself from having to actually confront and think about the data. And yet you liberals persist in your pretense of being driven by “facts”, when in truth, you avoid them like the plague and rely on emotionalism instead.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 29, 2011 at 9:39 AM

        You are so full of irrational hate that you simply cannot think clearly.

        No, I’d say it’s extremely rational. They caused a lot of damage to our country.

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 1:23 PM

        They caused a lot of damage to our country.

        Note that I am not going to disagree with this assertion, but will point out that their successors — the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate — merely accelerated the pace of that damage. The credit downgrade happened under Obama’s watch, the national debt increased from $10.7 trillion to 14.3 trillion in 2 1/2 years, and while you continue to blame everything on Bush and/or the Republicans, explain how that isn’t tantamount to “defending the Democrats against anything”. After all, you complained that Bush nearly doubled the national debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion, which is an increase of $5.0 trillion over eight years. And again, the last two years of Bush’s Presidency had a decidedly Democrat Congress.

        Obama managed to increase the national debt by $3.6 trillion in just 2.5 years, and all everyone seems to do is vilify and demonize the Republicans for trying to put the brakes on all that spending. If the rate is left unchecked, and assuming a linear rate of increase, Obama could increase our debt by $5.8 trillion in just one term, more than Bush managed to do in two terms. The net result could be something like $16.5 trillion in debt by the end of his first term. We cannot possibly afford a second term at that rate, as Obama could wind up double the debt yet again, quadrupling the debt Bush started with.

        We should therefore conclude that you hate Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc., and consider your hatred for the current Democrat gang to be rational. Either that or we’ve got a double standard.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM

        Obama managed to increase the national debt by $3.6 trillion in just 2.5 years

        How did they do that? Name the specific legislation. The Stimulus was $787 billion, 1/3 of which were Republican tax cuts, 1/3 were unemployment payouts from the Republican recession, and 1/3 were actually for stimulating the economy. So what other specific legislation did the Democrats pass that caused the huge increase in our debt?

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM

        How did they do that? Name the specific legislation.

        So we do have a double standard, then. The mere fact that you think it even matters how they did it or whether I can name the specific legislation pretty much proves that you are indeed guilty of that which you accuse me of doing, namely, “defending these bastards against anything”. The fact that you specifically try to pin 2/3 of the Stimulus on “Republican” this or “Republican” that is further proof of your utter hypocrisy. It simply doesn’t matter “how they did it”, chief. The numbers are what they are,

        Under Obama, the Federal Government managed to increase the national debt by $3.6 trillion in just 2.5 years. That is known as a fact, something you liberals are supposed to be rather fond of. That breaks down to $1.44 trillion per year in increased debt. The Bush Administration increased the debt by $5.0 trillion in eight years, which is $625 billion per year. That’s billion with a “b”.

        So you claim that it’s “rational” to hate Bush for increasing our debt at the rate he did, yet you defend Obama for increasing our debt at MORE THAN TWICE THE RATE Bush did!

        This level of hypocrisy is truly mind-boggling.

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM

        It simply doesn’t matter “how they did it”, chief. The numbers are what they are,

        No, it does indeed matter. You just can’t identify how they did it because you’re LYING.

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM

        The numbers don’t lie, chief. Like I said, they are what they are. It is what it is. The facts are the facts. All I did was some simple arithmetic that even a liberal should be able to follow.

        The fact that you have no recourse but to scream “LIAR!” pretty much proves that you have no case. But this does illustrate quite profoundly how liberals truly react to facts.

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM

        To anyone who is interested…

        The numbers are what they are,

        That preceeding sentence is a link to the actual numbers, just like I posted before. If someone wants to dispute the actual numbers, go right ahead. But calling me a “liar” is beyond lame, considering I posted a link to my source, like I typically do.

      • CB
        August 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM

        Hell, even the liberal CBS News acknowledges the reality of our national debt under Obama:

        The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama’s watch.

        The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

        It’s the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

        But it’s still “all Bush’s fault” somehow, I’m sure. Hell, I was being generous, apparently, saying that the debt increased by a mere $3.6 trillion…is that what you meant when you accused my of “lying”?

      • Ben Hoffman
        August 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM

        No, you’re lying when you blame it on Obama. While the debt has increased dramatically under Obama, his policies are only responsible for a small percentage of it. The rest is the fault of Republicans, primarily the tax cuts and the two wars. And don’t spit out your “spending” talking points. Discretionary spending hasn’t increased that much under Obama.

  9. CB
    August 28, 2011 at 10:11 AM

    “When the people find they can vote themselves money; that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin

    Reply
  10. X
    August 31, 2011 at 10:25 AM

    Why does CB’s response keep getting deleted?

    Reply
  11. CB
    February 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM

    No, I am not a troll — trolls typically do NOT back up what they say, but I DO, Consistently. And it’s interesting that you just decide to start deleting my posts with no warning of any kind. Interesting, but not surprising.

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

    Those are Obama’s own words, which he spoke during his floor speech in the U.S. Senate on March 20, 2006. And now that he is in the Oval Office, well, of course things are different. A Democrat now resides at the White House, so the “buck” doesn’t have to “stop here” any more…

    Typical liberal double-standards. Sure, there are plenty of liberal web sites out there that blame everything on Bush and the Republicans, just as you do, just as Obama himself does. And you can call it a “lie” to hold a different view if it helps you to sleep better at night, but I simply refuse to drink that kool-aid. I’ll simply observe the double-standard in operation, as you blame a decade-old tax cut for our current problems. The simple fact is that, under Obama’s “leadership”, our debt is increasing at more than twice the rate as it did under the Bush Administration.

    So, to reiterate, it is a sign of failed leadership to increase debt at this rate, and to raise debt ceilings. Obama said so himself. Part of being President, hell, part of being a man, is to take responsibility, not play the blame game. But again, this is what I consider to be typical of liberalism — blame anyone but yourself, and Republicans make a convenient scapegoat. The simple fact is that our President refuses to man up, while his policies are indeed making the existing problems worse. There is more to an economy than discretionary spending. There are entitlements. There is regulation, which has had the effect of slowing down our so-called “recovery”, which has led to more debt. And of course, there is the general expansion of Government to enforce all that new regulation, which increases the Government payroll and soaks up more taxpayer money.

    So yeah, call it a “lie” if you want. It is a free country, at least for now…

    Reply
    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: