Over past 32 years, Republican presidencies have created over 80% of U.S. Public Debt

We've talked about this before on our site, but Teabaggers should really support Democrats. Because if their number one issue is the national debt and government spending, there really is no comparison between the two parties. Problem is, they keep picking the wrong party.

Would Jim Renacci Vote to Save Teacher and Police Jobs?

It would be interesting to hear what Jim Renacci would have to say about the bill recently passed in Congress that was nearly unanimously voted against by Republicans. The $26 billion dollar bill is fully funded, and according to the CBO would reduce the deficit by $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. This is a perfect Republican bill, right? Fully paid for, reduces deficit, and helps save jobs for middle class Americans?

So what's the problem? Two reasons. One, the modern Republican Party has no policy platform. Their only strategy is to vote against anything Democrats support, particularly if it might help the economy (therefore hurt their chances in the November election). The other reason is that the bill was paid for by closing tax loopholes for multinational companies that try to claim domestic tax credits. So Republicans, in essence, are choosing to protect large corporations who ship job overseas from paying their due taxes at the expense of teachers, police officers, firefighters and more.

It makes you wonder how self-proclaimed "job creator" Renacci would have voted if he was in Congress. Would he vote in lockstep with his Republican buddies? I imagine so. John Boccieri clearly showed who's side he is on by voting for this bill. And Americans understand this, as 60% support this bill.

House Minority Whip Admits Economy is More Important Than Deficit

As we speak, Teabaggers are jumping ship from the Republican party after learning that House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has admitted that cutting taxes will "dig the hole deeper" when it comes to the deficit, but ultimately what is more important than the deficit is getting the economy going again.

In response to a question asking whether Republican tax cuts would hurt the deficit, Cantor said this:

What I said in the beginning is, um, if you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators. Link

Here is the video:

Director of President Reagan's Office of Management & Budget Says GOP Caused Economic Apocalypse

For Republicans and many Teabaggers (see photo to the left), President Ronald Reagan is a hero and icon. But the truth is that Reagan oversaw a 189% increase in the national debt during his eight years in office. His economic philosophy of giving tax cuts to the most wealthy has led to the average American, which Teabaggers are supposed to epitomize, to pay the debt.

Well, some people are starting to realize what Reaganomics in general and what passes for current Republican economic policy specifically has and will do to this country. Joining this group is David Stockman, who was Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget. He published an op-ed in the New York Times on July 31. He outlines four deformations of the economic apocalypse, but this passage is the one that needs to be heard the loudest:

This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

In 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts, matched by spending cuts, to offset the way inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint, however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.

Soon, the neocons were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol Hill who were supposed to cut spending exempted from the knife most of the domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects. But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the Republicans’ fiscal religion. Link

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility - Democrats

Written by Jed Lewison from the Daily Kos.

In the 2001 fiscal year (which began in October, 2000 and is the last one for which Clinton was responsible), revenue was $1.99 trillion and expenditures were $1.86 trillion. (Figures are in 2005 dollars.)

In the 2009 fiscal year (which began in October 2008 and is the last one for which Bush was responsible, sans about $200 billion from the stimulus), revenue was $2.1 trillion and expenditures were $3.5 trillion. (The recession caused revenue to plummet from $2.5 trillion in the 2008 fiscal year during which spending was $2.98 trillion.)

So even if you discount the spending side by the amount of the stimulus (which Bush wouldn't have supported) that means under Bush, revenue increased 5% while spending increased more than 75% and we went from 4 straight years of surplus to a deficit of more than $1 trillion.

How does Bush's fiscal performance compare to Clinton's? Well, the 1993 fiscal year (the last budget of the first Bush administration) had revenues of $1.15 trillion and spending of $1.41 trillion. So under Clinton, revenues increased 73% and spending increased by 32% and the budget went from deficit to surplus.

And somehow Republicans want to argue they know how to handle fiscal policy?

Earth to Republicans & Teabaggers

Every time I hear Republicans and the Teabaggers rail about government spending and the deficit, with the implicit or not so implicit implication that Democrats caused this problem, I keep expecting to hear the words "just kidding." But these people are serious. In the case of the Teabaggers, they just don't seem to know any better. For Republicans, they are just lying.

To make the culprits of the rising debt easily identifiable, here are some handy graphics that illustrate exactly who has been the problem. Hint, it isn't Democrats.


Courtesy of PresidentialDebt.org

Source


Source

Armed with this information, I'm assuming that the Tea Party on July 10 in downtown Wooster was a demonstration against Republicans, who are by far the main culprits in our nation's rising debt. But before answering this question, maybe the Wooster 912 Project can address this — how can a group that rails against all things government hold a PUBLIC rally at a TAXPAYER FUNDED town square? Are we the only ones that see the hypocrisy here?

This would be a good time to bring out one of my all-time favorite photos showing the utter hypocrisy that is the Tea Party movement.

Teabaggers Mock & Scorn Man With Parkinson's

Everyone involved in politics has to be careful with how they react to certain events and the type of language they use, since there is a lot of emotion involved. But I don't think it is overstating it to say that certain members of the Tea Party movement are just downright mean, heartless people.

Outside of Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy's district office (OH-15) on March 16, teabaggers heckled, cursed at, and threw money at a man suffering from Parkinson's disease. See video below:



Simply put, if you are against health care reform, you are supporting health insurance industries and people like this.

P.S. - The health care bill that Congress is voting on will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first decade and $1.2 trillion in the second decade. It is arguably the biggest cost control bill ever. Aren't Teabaggers supposed to be about lowering the deficit?

Update: Parkinson's Victim Mocked by Teabaggers Speaks Out

Conservatives Want To Cut Government Spending — Except They Don't

John Sides of Salon magazine has a great piece titled "On Spending, Conservatives are Quite Conflicted." In it, he points out, using a survey by the American National Election Study, that conservatives want the government to spend less, but not on anything the government actually spends money.

Which again begs the question. Do Republicans, and in particular, the Teabaggers, hold true policy positions, or are there positions driven by something completely different? Because if they truly care about government spending, why are they so unwilling to have government stop spending? And why would they support a party (Republicans) that consistently drives up the national debt?

Charts Prove Democrats Better For Economy, Deficit, Etc.

One of the most powerful ways to prove a point is often through charts. Here are some that clearly demonstrate that Democrats have been much better for the economy and the federal deficit.

House Republicans Vote Against Raising Debt Ceiling

Every Republican member of the House voted against raising the debt ceiling. Why is this significant? From 1995-2007 the Republican-controlled Congress voted eight times to raise the debt ceiling. But not this time. I guess they think their voters can't remember anything prior to January 20, 2009.

And what could potentially happen if the debt limit isn't raised from time to time? We default on our loan payments and the American economy collapses.

Republican Party the Fiscal Party? Think Again

We could devote an entire Web site to this myth, but the most recent example of how Republicans only talk about being fiscally responsible came in the Senate, when all 40 Republicans voted against Paygo. This plan, which was used by President Clinton and resulted in the surplus that President Bush squandered, would "impose a requirement that key parts of the budget must be paid for with spending cuts or tax increases to prevent the federal deficit from increasing." Four Republicans — Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich and John McCain — just a few years ago tried to bring back Paygo. But now they vote No? And anyone is supposed to take Republicans seriously?

Why Republicans and Teabaggers Should Support Health Care Reform

Republicans, and in particular the Tea Party crowd, like to beat their chests about the deficit. Well, what single issue is largely responsible for our national debt, both now and the future? Health care costs. And what is the first step to getting our hands around this problem? Passing health care reform. Imagine how much more effective this bill could be if nearly one half of the political spectrum spent all its energy lying about the bill.

We've literally never had a deficit problem this large before. And it's not the fault of the stimulus or the bailout — both of which were short-term costs that account for about 3 or 4 percent of the long-term deficit — or even any particular policy. It's mainly health-care costs — in the private and public sectors — with an assist from demographic changes. But however you slice it, it's going to require some really tough decisions from a Congress that shows no capacity for making such tough decisions. Inaction isn't an option unless you're comfortable with crisis being the outcome. Link

Health Reform Illustrated

By Igor Volsky at the Wonk Room:

Hypocrisy Alert: Tea Party in Wooster October 24, 2009

It will likely look something like this (notice the use of socialistic property; also, the military is a government-funded entity):

There is even an invitation to use Public Parking for this event. Maybe someone can tell them that President Obama has cut taxes for 98.6% of working households; that President Reagan tripled the national debt, then after President Clinton left office with a surplus, President George W. Bush doubled the debt.

In fact, President George W. Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, and when adjusted for inflation, Bush increased the federal budget by 104 percent. By comparison, Clinton only increased the federal budget by 11 percent in his eight years. But the most astonishing thing about Bush's spending is that we have nothing to show for it. Any Tea Party in America should only be taking place in President Bush's hometown in Texas.

But most importantly, President Obama was elected by an electoral landslide. Voters spoke less than a year ago, and they overwhelmingly supported President Obama's agenda. Time to get over it.