oh, fer christ sake, now we are defending the truth of the blue sky and the green grass (because even bushco peeps say it's true).

you'll excuse me, i'll just join my cat in puking...
it's like a hairball, this political discourse...

OK.

Who has credibility on this issue?

This country is getting what it deserves. Let's face it, your average American is basically an ignorant dumb fuck.

During their reign, Republicans took an annual surplus of a quarter of a trillion dollars and, in just eight years, turned it into a $1.2 trillion deficit. -- Steve Benen

Building us that surplus was, probably, the biggest mistake on Clinton's part; it only gave the Regressives more money to go whoring with, once they got their hands in the till.

Also... Isn't Cheney on record saying he wasn't worried about deficits? That bit should be replayed every time one of the Regressives starts bleating.

If you expect Americans to evaluate the credibility of political parties and act rationally on that basis, I'll give you a Barney Frank answer.

Time to throw the emergency monkey wrench

Let's face it, your average American is basically an ignorant dumb fuck.

I've faced it. The real question is: how do you use that fact to political advantage? Obviously the republicans know how. They keep throwing shit. And lots of it. The real question is: What wrenches can the Dims throw that might change the game?

Consider this Robert Reich paragraph:

The public insurance option has become a lightening rod for Republicans, hate radio jocks, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and lobbyists for the health-industrial complex who accuse the White House and Democrats of planning a "government takeover" of health care. Anything that has the word "public" in it is always an automatic target for their rants.

So what's the monkey wrench?
Stop calling it the public option. Right now. And right now forever.

We've talked about this before. You shift the ground by saying you are droping the public option and instead are going to extend Medicare to all those who want to buy into it.

That's how you win. Change the bastard language.
Make the republicans attack Medicare and feed the public some new words to ponder over...

The American public has an astoundingly short memory, and is prone to conflate GOP sobriquettes of "fiscal conservativis" for "fscal responsibility". It is a real concern, but at the end of the day, it will be about the health of the economy. GHWB wasn't kicked out of office for raising taxes, he was kicked out because the economy sucked.

Just to clarify, Clinton appointed Walker. The Comptroller General is appointed by the President from a slate proposed by Congress to serve a 15-year term. I've always heard that Walker is a Republican, but it isn't really fair to characterize him as part of the Bush Administration.

So, WHY doesn't Team Obama EVER MENTION THIS ?

I'll bet the Clinton people would have

You've got to PUNCH BACK
And Obama seems like to much of a SISSY to punch back

As crooked as she was/is, Hillary Clinton might have been a better choice for the nomination

(But, I'm STILL GLAD she lost)
(inevitable, my foot!)

Why is BO the only Democrat communicating nationally? Where are Biden, Clinton, Dean, even Gore? OK, Reid is pretty hopeless, Kennedy is dead, I think Pelosi could be good, but who else?

Jim Webb, your country needs you! Michelle, time to get out and mix it up!

Instead it is all wonks all the time talking to other wonks in wonkspeak. Americans aren't stupid, they're just getting half the story - or less.

It isn't the Republican's fault that McCain is more interesting than almost any Democrat you can name.

Here's a thought: how about Democrats stop debating the fine points of health care policy and start building on that "medicare hating party of no" narrative that regular Americans need to hear.

And let's give the Prez a hand in reaching out and making the case for change.

And to further clarify, the Comptroller General is not considered a partisan appointment. That 15-year term was designed to build-in protection from partisan urges.

I've sat in a room with David Walker while his staff told him they'd heard members of Congress debating whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. That they couldn't agree made him very happy, since he worked hard to remain above the fray and provide non-partisan leadership to a non-partisan organization.

You shouldn't be so surprised.

It's all in the difference in the types of fiscal irresponsibility here. Sure, Republicans were incredibly irresponsible, but gave a lot of people a little extra pocket change (in the form of a small, but noticeable tax cut).

Those Democrats want to take that pocket change back and give it away to poor people and a bunch of those "other types" of people...

See? In America, the former is an easy sell... the latter, not so much.

If you act ashamed of your policies voters abandon you. When George Stephanopolous or David Greogry ask some Democratic pol whether some policy will add to the deficit the answer is simple. They should say 1)the policy is necessary and will reduce the national debt through economic growth in the long run. We know that because 2)every Democratic president since WWII has been able to reduce the national debt when measured as a fraction of GDP and 3)the only GOP presidents to do so were Nixon and Eisenhower. That means that the economic policies of the Goldwater/Reagan/Bush Republican party are as completely bankrupt as the national security policies of the Goldwater/Reagan/Bush Republican party.

Democrats should never be asked how they will pay for their policies; Democratic policies foster sufficient economic growth to offset any spending*. (*That doesn't always include what is required to clean up after GOP catastrophes like Hoover and Bush II. Those adminstrations are generational disasters that take generations to overcome.)

Until you supposedly liberal people begin to understand government spending from a liberal point of view, the bottom 50% of the U.S. population will have stagnant incomes.

Take a look at a pro-capitalist liberal economics:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/

If we want savings to increase, the government must run a deficit. This is an economic truth, ask Paul Krugman. Surpluses are bad for the economy in the long run, and only provide a 3 or 4 year boost to the economy.

We've run surpluses two times in the last 100 years. 1928 and in the late 90's. What do these times have in common? A long depression or recession a few years later. Unless you think the Bush years were good economically, do not support anyone who advocates for a return to surpluses.

Walker has aligned himself with noted fiscal scold Pete Peterson's foundation, which never met an entitlement program that shouldn't be cut. That needs to be kept in mind when judging his public statements.

koreyel's idea is brilliant.

As for gaining political advantage from the undeniable facts, democrats must be willing to repeat them over and over. This is a skill republicans understand and use consistently to their advantage. The term "tax & spend liberal" is emblazoned in the public consciousness. We need a similar slogan to remind people of the fiscal hole dug by republicans. It sounds childish but it works.

There's a reason that America loved Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average. Americans want a government where all the taxes are nonexistent, all the services are unlimited, and all the rules only apply to someone else.

As long as this holds true and the Republipigs are willing to and eminently capable of exploting it, I don't know if any real progress on serious issues is ever going to be possible. I'm about at the point of "f-ck it, the GOP wants this mess back, give it to them." Maybe when they run us up to 25% unemployment, it will clear the cobwebs away enough to bring people back to the real world.

Who has credibility on this issue?

Posted by: marketeer on September 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Well, here's a hint, "marketeer": Obama stopped using many of the deceptive accounting practices Bush used to disguise the size of his deficits -- a fact that the so-called "liberal media" never -- excuse me, always -- fails to point out.

Jackass.

Just to clarify the surplus(es) from Clinton's final years. The largest came from increased individual tax payments which arose as people sold stock as the NASDAQ declined i.e. people took the gains as the index fell rather than wait for the bottom.
Expenditures in the year with the largest surplus actually rose by a net $25 billion IIRC. See the OMB Historical data.(here)
At the same time, Social Security receipts continued to exceed benefits paid which was the root cause of the first, modest surplus.

The basic story, which Angry Bear blog has laid out several times is true: Democratic presidents (and their policies) result in higher GDP growth, on average, than Republican presidents.

As for gaining political advantage from the undeniable facts, democrats must be willing to repeat them over and over. -- rramos, @16:32

The problem with that suggestion is that majority of intelligent people also have a very low boredom threshold; constant repetition of *precisely same* "stuff" doesn't appeal. So, we will say "that's horrible" one time and "it's terrible" next time, which leaves the Repressive Reptiles hissing "sssoo... which isss it?

Where are you getting the $9,000,000,000,000 figure from? Just Google "The National Debt or The National Debt Clock". The cheney/bush Fascist Criminal Enterprise doubled the National debt in just 8 years. They doubled the National Debt that took all the past presidents/Congress combined.

Hasn't there been a number of items noting that Republicans try to run up deficits on purpose to "starve the beast" (gov't)--leaving democrats trying to clean up the Republican's mess instead of pursuing positive policies???

Speaking of green energy, there's an article on CNet about First Energy getting a contract in China:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10347438-54.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

Wonder where the solar cells will be made...

Bush was the King of Spenders...until now.

Going into debt in "normal" times makes it hard to deal with abnormal times like an economic crisis - Bush's further damage.

...as stated by President Obama in The Speech tonight! Wow, what a winner ...

Facts and truth US corporate media WON'T PRINT:

"The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits."

I am the kind of guy who enjoys to taste innovative things. Currently I'm making my own photovoltaic panels. I'm doing it all by myself without the aid of my men. I am utilizing the net as the only way to acheive that. I ran across a very brilliant site that explains how to contruct solar panels and wind generators. The internet site explains all the steps needed for solar panel construction.

I am not sure about how accurate the data given there is. If some guys over here who have xp with these works can have a look and give your feedback in the site it would be grand and I'd highly treasure it, because I truly would love to try solar panel construction.

Thanks for reading this. U people are great.

Badly need your help. Thanks for the info. Help me! I can not find sites on the: Baby bedding stores in indiana. I found only this - baby crib bedding sets. Stores are among the most online parks in the band when they are all modified and taken in a blow, bedding. Bedding, if you owe song or near size, this controversy is n't the term to continue it. Thanks for the help ;-), Melita from Zaire.

I enjoyed reading your blog. Keep it that way.

I was extremely pleased to locate this website.I wanted to thank you with regard to this excellent read!! I certainly appreciated every little bit of it and I've you bookmarked to look at new things you publish.