Hardly surprising

Karen, the Lonely Conservative, posted:


Mitt Romney Brings Up National Debt Clock, MSNBC Brings Up Bush


May 17, 2012 | By

MSNBC is ridiculous. Mitt Romney made a campaign appearance in Florida today and rolled out the National Debt Clock to show the dangerous path this country is traveling on. Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the nearly $16 trillion in national debt, but he did acknowledge that many Republicans did. So, how did MSNBC report the news?

“There was another area during [President Obama's] campaign, he said he would focus on. You see, he was very critical of his predecessor for the debts his predecessor put in place. And sure it’s true you can’t blame one party or the other for all the debts this country has, because both parties in my opinion have spent too much and borrowed too much when they were in power,” Romney said in this key swing state.

(Interestingly, Romney danced around the actual name of that predecessor, George W. Bush, who on Tuesday endorsed the former Massachusetts Governor when asked a question by an ABC News reporter.)

What was George Bush supposed to say when he was asked who he was pulling for in the next election? Obama? The Democrats were just as – if not more – culpable for the economic meltdown as the Republicans. President Obama happened to be a Senator for the party that controlled Congress at the time, in case anyone forgot. In fact, the economy was doing pretty well before they took over during Bush’s lame duck years. I kind of remember them running against the Republicans’ rotten 5% unemployment rate. Those were the days.

Way to shill for your man, MSNBC. We expect nothing more from you. While most political bloggers wear our ideologies on our sleeves, you continue to pretend you’re a neutral and objective news organization. What a joke.

Karen isn’t really surprised that MSNBC is a technically-unaffiliated but nevertheless important part of President Obama’s re-election campaign. While it might be nicer if they’d go ahead and put up the Obama banners in the background, MSNBC’s leftward bias has been a conscious and obvious part of their programing philosophy. Given that your Editor supports Fox News right to be oriented toward conservatism and the truth, he cannot object to MSNBC having a bias toward liberalism and falsehood. Considering that Fox gets roughly 2½ times the viewers of MSNBC, it works out pretty well. :)

Oh, by the way, the national debt went up by about half a billion dollars between the time Mitt Romney made his speech and the time I wrote this post.

And this is why THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL maintains the icon to the left permanently available in teh sidebar: if you click on it, you will be directed to the Treasury Department’s Debt to the Penny page; the Total Federal Debt Outstanding, as of the 15th, was $15,716,115,612,805.06, which was an increase of $39,119,338,944.24 over the previous day.

Of course, we already know — but your Editor will remind you, yet again — what Senator Barack Husseon Obama (D-IL) said about a President who had added $4 trillion to the national debt “all by his lonesome,” something the host of Bridging the Gap said was “pathetic“.

Given that President Obama managed to exceed President Bush’s two term record in only 3¼ years, perhaps that was what he meant by pathetic. It certainly is true that President Bush was a piker compared to President Obama when it comes to piling up debt!

Mitt Romney needs to keep hammering on President Obama’s record on the economy, including ridiculous spending levels and the huge increase in the deficit and the national debt. He should hammer hard, every day.
____________________
Update: posted after Wagonwheel’s comment. William Teach cited John Hinderaker, who noted that the United States Senate has voted on five separate FY2013 budget resolutions, and all have failed, because not one Democrat ever voted for a single one of them, including President Obama’s budget!

Four different Republican budgets were taken up by the Senate. The House budget (commonly referred to as the Ryan budget) was voted down 41-58. The vote on Pat Toomey’s budget was 42-47; the vote on Rand Paul’s budget was 16-83; and the vote on Mike Lee’s budget was 17-82. The common denominator was that no Democrat had the courage to vote for any of them.

The Senate vote on President Obama’s budget was 0-99; not one single senator voted for it.

Now, tell me again about how hardworking and dedicated the Democrats are.

16 Comments

  1. Mr Editor wrote:

    “Of course, we already know — but your Editor will remind you, yet again — what Senator Barack Husseon Obama (D-IL) said about a President who had added $4 trillion to the national debt “all by his lonesome,” something the host of Bridging the Gap said was “pathetic“.

    Given that President Obama managed to exceed President Bush’s two term record in only 3¼ years, perhaps that was what he meant by pathetic. It certainly is true that President Bush was a piker compared to President Obama when it comes to piling up debt!”

    That’s correct, Mr Editor, but context is very important, which you have chosen to ignore. I will continue to point out the fact that Bush’s war debt, tax cuts favoring the wealthy, and Medicare Part D, were “pathetic”, because they were not paid for. Moreover, most of that debt was used to invade and to kill people. How can any honorable American possibly be proud of that legacy, except that today’s Republicans, including our Editor, remain proud.

    In addition to this fact, our Editor, as usual, leaves out a few more facts, like George Bush created a Great Recession which President Obama has inherited and handled very well. So in addition to saving our nation from Great Depression II, President Obama’s policies have saved and created jobs and have promoted economic growth, such that we are doing far, far better than the European countries with their austerity policies, a fact that our Editor has yet to acknowledge, and never will, because it is not within his partisan interests to do so.

    Note: Facts count, and should not be ignored!

  2. “Facts count, and should not be ignored!”

    Okay, so let’s not ignore them.

    “That’s correct, Mr Editor, but context is very important, which you have chosen to ignore. I will continue to point out the fact that Bush’s war debt [continued by Obama], tax cuts favoring the wealthy [continued by Obama], and Medicare Part D [also continued by Obama], were “pathetic”, because they were not paid for [ as is most everything including the failed "stimulation" by Obama].

    And just so you know, you left wing wacko, Bush was a friggin’ LIBERAL, not a conservative. The only thing you really object to is his party affiliation, not his policies. The fact is Obama carried on his leftist policies to the letter.

    “… a few more facts, like George Bush created a Great Recession which President Obama has inherited and handled very well.”

    The fact is when Bush became President we were already in a recession [and a President, any President does not have the ability to create a recession]. Then we got hit with 9/11. Or were you asleep during that time? Bush did what he thought best for our country. I do not agree with most of what he did but he did not do anything to “fundamentally change America”. And the fact is when Obama became President he too got a recession. But rather than gather the business community to find a way out, he instead demonized the very people who could get us out of it and he took a recession and made it a Great Recession. And he continues to do so because it’s “all about him”. Now I read Obama’s making a million a year and has a net worth of 10 million. Exactly how does a guy who collected three pay checks over three years of 400 grand make that kind of money? Corruption, that’s how. Obama is the 1%!!!!! Hope there are enough exclamation points.

  3. WW, the Senate democrats — as well as the House Democrats — voted unanimously against the President’s own FY2013 budget submittal: the House voted it down 0-414, and the Senate 0-99. Either the President’s own budget is totally unserious, or the Democrats in Congress are unserious.

    Actually, the answer is both, not either/or. Kind of like Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who admitted that the Administration had no plans at all for dealing with the long-term debt crisis, but they didn’t like Paul Ryan’s. At least the Republulicans have a plan!?

  4. It should also be noted that while the Senate and House Democrats thoroughly rejected President Obama’s proposed budget, not one single House or Senate Democrat has offered a substitute budget proposal. It’s one thing to say that they don’t like the proposed Republican budgets, but something else entirely to not have any alternatives. It’s almost as if they weren’t doing their fornicating jobs.

  5. Oh, and since “facts count,” it should be noted that the Senate vote totals given above are facts, not opinions. One wonders how our liberal from Lewes will justify or explain away those.

  6. Checking some facts for Wagonwheel:

    That’s correct, Mr Editor, but context is very important, which you have chosen to ignore. I will continue to point out the fact that Bush’s war debt, tax cuts favoring the wealthy, and Medicare Part D, were “pathetic”, because they were not paid for. Moreover, most of that debt was used to invade and to kill people. How can any honorable American possibly be proud of that legacy, except that today’s Republicans, including our Editor, remain proud.

    OK, the fact is that the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, using the counter from the very much anti-war site Cost of War, was $1.333 trillion; the total national debt increase under President Bush was over $4 trillion, so no, “most of that debt” was not used to liberate Iraq and Afghanistan. So, once again, you were wrong. This is a mistake you would not have made had you taken a few moments to look it up.

    In addition to this fact, our Editor, as usual, leaves out a few more facts, like George Bush created a Great Recession which President Obama has inherited and handled very well. So in addition to saving our nation from Great Depression II, President Obama’s policies have saved and created jobs and have promoted economic growth, such that we are doing far, far better than the European countries with their austerity policies, a fact that our Editor has yet to acknowledge, and never will, because it is not within his partisan interests to do so.

    No, it is your opinion that we would have gone into another depression, not a fact; it is wholly unprovable, either way, because we cannot know what would have occurred otherwise.

    Nor can one say that President Obama has created any jobs; there are just a handful more jobs now than when he was inaugurated, despite the fact that the stimulus plan was passed within the first two months of his inauguration. The facts are that virtually no jobs were created under President Obama.

  7. Actually, I was too hasty in my previous comment, in noting that the total costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was $1.333 trillion. That number is accurate, but since Wagonwheel was making a claim concerning how much Iraq and Afghanistan added to the national debt during the Bush Administration, I should have restricted the costs to FY2001-FY2009. The total cost of both wars during those fiscal years was $949.8 billion, slightly less than a trillion dollars, while the total accumulated national debt during the Bush Administration was $4,899,100,310,608.44. In just 3 years, 3 months and 25 days, President Obama added $5,089,238,563,891.98 to the national debt.

    We all remember how Senator Obama said that the first 42 presidents had accumulated $5 trillion in debt (actually, $5,727,776,738,304.64), while President Bush, “all by his lonesome,” added $4 trillion (actually $4,899,100,310,608.44), which we can all agree was way, way, way too much. Well, President Obama has not only surpassed President Bush’s addition, but at the rate he is adding to the debt, he will succeed in exceeding the first 42 presidents, “all by his lonesome,” in just one term! And if the American people are foolish enough to re-elect him, by the time his second term (heaven forfend! is over, he will have added more to the national debt than all 43 of his predecessors.

  8. “Nor can one say that President Obama has created any jobs; there are just a handful more jobs now than when he was inaugurated, despite the fact that the stimulus plan was passed within the first two months of his inauguration. The facts are that virtually no jobs were created under President Obama.”

    There he goes again, our Editor that is, with his willful neglect of context. Only the ignorant, or an extremist partisan on the right, would hold the incoming credit responsible for jobs lost on the first day of his Presidency, when this nation had just gone over a cliff.

    And I will also note, Mr Editor, that you have yet to acknowledge the outcome so far of austerity in the UK. A similar outcome could be expected here, were your Ryan Plan to be imposed here. Moreover, I hasten to remind you again, that you did make a prediction about the UK economy a year ago which turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong – 180 degrees from the actual reality. Your comments are based on your supposed understanding of macroeconomics. PiaToR at the time demonstrated that you were wrong, as I recall.

  9. “OK, the fact is that the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, using the counter from the very much anti-war site Cost of War, was $1.333 trillion;”

    That’s an expenditure has been a total wasted expenditure, not to mention the countless lives and limbs lost on both sides. But you apparently could care less, Mr Editor, and include the demonstrated lover of war, Hoagie John, while you are at it. Disgusting!!!

  10. On the budget rejection, I will point out two things:

    1. The Dems do not vote in fascist lock-step like the Repubs, having enough courage to oppose a President from their own party. Hardly could we ever expect such a vote from extremist Republicans, as they are today constituted, unable/unwilling to cast a vote against the party line.

    2. I note that the Ryan/Romney Plan went down in the Senate by a 7-90 vote, a rare example where Republicans did reject a plan from one of their own. Amazing!!! What good is a budget plan which goes down 7-90. Can it be that you would conclude that it was a better plan than one which went down 0-99?

    Look here:

    “The Obama administration projects their budget plan would save $4 trillion by 2022. However, the budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, projects a $1.33 trillion deficit, marking a fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits.

    The president’s plan projects that the deficit would drop to $901 billion in 2013 and to $575 billion by 2018. It would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire. It also proposes to raise $41 billion over 10 years by hiking taxes on oil, gas and coal companies.”

    In an election year, you won’t find anyone willing to support a budget with these features. They’re all cowards, every one of them. They might also be realists!!

  11. “1. The Dems do not vote in fascist lock-step like the Repubs …”

    So of the Dems that voted, they did not all vote the same way? Oh, they did. “Fascist lockstep” …

  12. WW moves the goalposts;

    “OK, the fact is that the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, using the counter from the very much anti-war site Cost of War, was $1.333 trillion;”

    That’s an expenditure has been a total wasted expenditure, not to mention the countless lives and limbs lost on both sides. But you apparently could care less, Mr Editor, and include the demonstrated lover of war, Hoagie John, while you are at it. Disgusting!!!

    Originally his claim was that the costs of the wars liberating the Iraqi and Afghan people constituted “most” of the debt accumultaed under President Bush, but that claim was demonstrated to have been in error.

    Some of us might claim that the entire “war on poverty” has been a “total wasted expenditure.” Poverty still exists, just as much as in 1965. You might not like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least they will one day be over; Iraq already is.

    Lives lost on both sides? You write as though there were no lives being lost under the dictatorial governments that existed there before, but it often seems like our friends on the left don’t really mind dictatorships; they certainly wouldn’t do anything to topple them, and in many cases, supported them.

  13. I see that Wagonwheel does defend the do-nothing Democrats!

    On the budget rejection, I will point out two things:

    1. The Dems do not vote in fascist lock-step like the Repubs, having enough courage to oppose a President from their own party. Hardly could we ever expect such a vote from extremist Republicans, as they are today constituted, unable/unwilling to cast a vote against the party line.

    Really? Every single one of them voted in opposition to every budget proposal put to a vote, including the President’s! If that isn’t voting in Fascist goose-step, what is?

    2. I note that the Ryan/Romney Plan went down in the Senate by a 7-90 vote, a rare example where Republicans did reject a plan from one of their own. Amazing!!! What good is a budget plan which goes down 7-90. Can it be that you would conclude that it was a better plan than one which went down 0-99?

    Well, at least you can’t say that the Republicans voted in Fascist goose-step, the way the Democrats did.

    Look here:

    “The Obama administration projects their budget plan would save $4 trillion by 2022. However, the budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, projects a $1.33 trillion deficit, marking a fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits.

    The president’s plan projects that the deficit would drop to $901 billion in 2013 and to $575 billion by 2018. It would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning $200,000 by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire. It also proposes to raise $41 billion over 10 years by hiking taxes on oil, gas and coal companies.”

    In an election year, you won’t find anyone willing to support a budget with these features. They’re all cowards, every one of them. They might also be realists!!

    Except that the Republicans did vote for several budget proposals, including some with some really unpleasant effects; it’s kind of difficult to call them cowards for that.

    But it’s rather interesting that you have described the President’s proposed FY2013 budget as one on which “In an election year, you won’t find anyone willing to support.” Our congressmen and senators are supposed to represent the American people. If the President’s budget is so bad that no one can vote for it if he has to face the voters — and remember: more than half of the Democratic senators don’t have to face the voters this year, and even they voted against it — then perhaps it ought to be considered a budget that is being rejected by the American people. That’s kind of how democracy works.

  14. Pingback: The courage of the Democrats « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.

Comments are closed.