Our country may not survive four more years
By Frank Ellis
It does appear that we are now outnumbered and outflanked. I cannot honestly see how we can overcome this election. I sort of feel like Gen.Lee and President Jefferson Davis must have felt after Gettysburg, and learning Vicksburg had fallen too on the same day.
It may well prove to be too late to save the country, and all we can do is fight a desperate retreating action. As the quote that was going around went, “We can survive a one term Obama presidency, but we cannot survive a people that will re-elect him.”
Ellis is retired and lives in Roanoke.
November 15, 2012 - 8:03 AM
In all seriousness Al,...
The only problem with your argument that Bush was a “piker” in regards to his spending compared to the President, are facts:
“In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.
Over Obama’s FOUR budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.”
Source: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
I do respect other people’s opinions when they are based in some sort of reality. However it seems like your labeling of America becoming a socialist society is merely parroting fear-mongering rhetoric that the neo-conservatives like Limbaugh, Beck, O’Reilly, Morris, Gingrich and the Fox News talking heads have been trying to sell for the past 4 years. If they are so wise, why did they predict that Romney would win in a landslide with a GOP-majority Senate? Because they refused to listen to anyone else except for those who shared their own opinions. This has most recently been referred to as the “Republican Bubble”. These pundits also dismissed anybody that had a dissenting opinion from their own. And as we all know it turns out the dissenting opinions were actually the correct ones, (see Dan Chambers’ pre-election criticisms about Nate Silver).
Look, I’m not trying to convince anyone to abandon their beliefs and many studies indicate that trying to do so would be a waste of time for both of us. But, I do ask that you inform yourself. There are more channels than Fox News and there are more websites than Drudge and Red State.
The more we as a society are open to civil discourse and pay less attention to the Chicken Little sky is falling demagoguery the better off we will all be.
To #2 (Keith): The only problem with your argument is that you assume that Bush was responsible for all of the spending of the 2009 fiscal year, when in reality he was president for only a third of it. The 2009 fiscal year included the $0.80 trillion ARRA stimulus act, which was passed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law by Obama. Bush had nothing to do with ARRA at all.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/the-obama-spending-binge
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/
Selecting the 2009 fiscal year as your baseline for Obama is (ahem) an extreme bit of “cherry-picking”. Also, given that the 2009 fiscal year was dominated by TARP and ARRA spending, we should have expected spending to drop significantly down afterward. It didn’t.
Spending under Bush was bad: 20% of GDP on average. Spending under Obama has been worse: 24% of GDP on average.
20% of GDP in a non-crisis economy is “(ahem) an extreme bit of” comparison and helps make the point that 24% of GDP in a real and prolonged crisis is not so much worse at all. The crisis, not Obama, was the problem. You want to forget that, but that’s what I am here for.
Brian, My issue isn’t that the spending under the President isn’t bad. I would love to see another balanced budget such as the one Clinton passed in a bi-partisan manner. My issue is the author’s take that Bush was somehow a spendthrift in comparison. To immerse the country into two wars and institute a Medicare Part D program all of which were unfunded and unsustainable, while at the same time cutting taxes like GW Bush did, is about as fiscally irresponsible as any administration has ever been.
And clearly you didn’t complete reading or get the point of my post. I detailed the need to take partisan reports with a grain of salt. However, you cited an article published by a branch of the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundations’ biggest grants come from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation (of the Koch Bros. fame) and ExxonMobil. The Heritage Foundation is not exactly a reliable, unbiased source.
To #3 (Sandi): Please remember that the recession ended in June 2009. More than three years ago. Are we still in a true crisis now, or is spending 24% of GDP simply the new normal?
To #4 (Keith): I wholeheartedly agree that cutting taxes while launching two wars and Medicare Part D was fiscally irresponsible. I’ve never said otherwise. [Given the lack of funding, perhaps Medicare Part D should cancelled.] However, Obama and Democrats launched the ARRA, “cash-for-clunkers”, housing credits, payroll tax holidays, and numerous other stimulus items without paying for them either. They also renewed the Bush tax cuts for two years and are talking about making 75% of them permanent. Combined with willful ignorance on entitlement spending, http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/, this is piling fiscal irresponsibility on top of fiscal irresponsibility.
Indeed, when you look at damage to the nation’s finances, damage under Obama has been more severe. When Bush took office in 2001, the “debt held by the public” was 33.5% of GDP. When he left office and Obama showed up, the debt was 45.5%. This is an increase of 12%, for which Bush deserves considerable criticism. Alas, as of today that debt load is 72.5% of GDP. 27% of GDP higher. This is more than twice the increase in less than half the time.
And as for my link to a Heritage Foundation article… Can you point out actual errors with their numbers or their thinking? Or are you just whining about media bias like conservatives often whine about media bias? [I've found that all media is biased. Some strongly and some weakly, and some to the left and some to the right. But it's all biased.]
Brian, please remember the ARRA Stimulus was “done” in 2009 in the teeth of the crisis as well. There has not been a new Stimulus bill since. The spending now is budgetary in nature and not Obama in nature. The Congress has every right and responsibility to have been working on cutting spending and reducing debt instead of campaigning to hang Obama. They chose their path.
The people of America looking at 7.8% unemployment, shrinking wages, disappearing benefits and political firings do not believe the economic crisis is remotely over. It has been used to the utmost advantage of employers.
To Brian #5 – Looking at anything out of context is a fool’s venture no matter if you look at it from the left or the right. http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/22/news/economy/obama-spending/index.htm
Additionally Brian – http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/
My point is that you can massage the numbers to work whichever way you want, to think otherwise is foolish.
I am starting to think that Congress has never taken their own zealous campaign talk about the debt or the deficit seriously. If indeed they did, we would not have had the four years we have had. We would not be hurtling towards a “fiscal cliff” while they jockey for microphones and distort the facts. If all of this was so very important, so vital to our nation’s survival would you not think Congress would shape up at some point? No evidence exists so far.
I remember them screaming that the Reagan tax hikes would cause a recession…it did not. He created millions of jobs.
I remember them screaming that the Clinton tax hikes would cause a recession…it did not. He created even more millions of jobs.
I remember them chanting that the Bush tax cuts would create millions of jobs…they did not. He ended with barely a million jobs in 8 years.
I think Congress is about the last people we should believe on much of anything. GerryMander is not our friend. “Reliable districts” seem to be our mortal enemies.
I will believe there is a cliff when they do.