This is Why You're Broke

Daily Beast ^ | June 20th, 2012 | David Frum

[KantianBurke]

A new survey of American politics by the British polling firm YouGov highlights a familiar pattern in US deficit politics:

YouGov asked: "Which of the following would you support as ways to reduce the nation's budget deficit?" They altered the rules of polling slightly, however, to deny respondents a "don't know" answer. Respondents had to answer something, either yes or no. Denied the "don't know" exit, Democrats favored higher taxes on the wealthy, 77.2%, and cuts in military spending, 46%. Democrats intensely opposed cuts in Medicare and Social Security, only about 5% in favor of either. Just 14% of Democrat answered "none of the above."

Republicans were a very different story. Unsurprisingly, many fewer Republicans supported tax increases on the wealthy (27.1%) and cuts in military spending (15.5%). Yet when denied the "don't know" exit, Republicans were scarcely more accepting of cuts to Medicare or Social Security than Democrats, only 13.5% and 15.% approving, respectively. A majority of Republicans, 53.3%, answered "none of the above"—no changes to taxes, defense, or entitlements.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is our quandary.

[KantianBurke]

Still doesn't explain why the Tea Party was awfully quiet when Dubya was in office. Meanwhile:

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Huh?

Another Frumpish incoherence. Big surprise. Only one person thinks Frum is a genius.

The TP did not exist as an item called the “Tea Pary” when GWB was in office. He had plenty of criticism as to his spending, and IMO that is well documented.

[KantianBurke]

“IMO that is well documented.”

By all means produce said documentation. Those few of us on FR who called out Bush for such nonsense as NCLB, Medicare Part D and NEA funds were attacked pretty relentlessly! While you’re at it, explain what went down from 02 to 06 when the GOP controlled both Houses in Congress and the White House and still managed to spend like drunken sailors. And why was the tea party content with Dubya’s spending binges but silent about them?

[Lakeshark]

While you’re at it, explain what went down from 02 to 06 when the GOP controlled both Houses in Congress and the White House and still managed to spend like drunken sailors. And why was the tea party content with Dubya’s spending binges but silent about them?

Uuuh, possibly because the tea party didn't exist until 2009?

[combat_boots]

There was also the war in Iraq and AfgPak.

[cuban leaf]

I remember back in 2007, it hit me like a brick why our money seems to not go as far: Tax inflation. I noticed that more and more of what we spent and earned was going to taxes and fees.

To clarify, we were renters and our rent didn’t go up between 1998 and 2011 while we continued to get into nicer and nicer houses.

[csmusaret]

There was not widespread outrage about spending because,as it related to GDP, Bush's spending was not much out of the ordinary until the Pelosi/Reid cartel took Congress.

[csmusaret]

[KantianBurke]

ROTFLMAO! Its kinda touching that even years later there are some die hards who still cling to that fig leaf of explanation. Here’s a hint - the spending costs associated with Medicare Part D took off (as many of us forewarned) right around the time you list. And even if one accepts your pic at face value DUBYA WAS THE PRESIDENT. HE CAN SIGN OR VETO SPENDING BILLS. Take a moment to research how many items of legislation that knucklehead took down. Go head. I’ll wait.

[KantianBurke]

Ha. More nonsense. In a silly attempt to whitewash Dubya’s legacy you conveniently overlook the effect the economic recession played. Obama’s terrible but the comparison is inexact. Nice try.

[csmusaret]

I was not defending Bush’s spending. I was explaining why their was not widespread outrage about it. Click on this link; it might help you:http://www.time4learning.com/reading-programs.shtml

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Stop purchasing imports.

Stop purchasing imports.

Stop purchasing imports.

[altura]

Yes, taxes and fees that people don’t even notice.

Look at your water bill, for example.

Actual cost of water used: $10.

Total bill: $75

The rest is taxes and fees.

Same with phone bills.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Welfare State Socialism softens the character of its subjects. They become passive sheep who want the spending but don’t want to pay for it. So they focus on taxing “the rich” to give themselves a free ride. Every day, we see how truly evil the Welfare State is. We see that it is a run away train heading off a cliff and none of the passengers or engineers is willing or able to stop it.

[KantianBurke]

“Uuuh, possibly because the tea party didn’t exist until 2009? “

So when the “R” left the White House and the “D” moved in? Got it. Thanks.

[wintertime]

Same with phone bills.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

We use Skype at $3/month. We have a pre-paid emergency phone for the car that we rarely use. This is saving us hundreds of dollars a year in TAXES and phone service.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Those few of us on FR who called out Bush for such nonsense as NCLB, Medicare Part D and NEA funds were attacked pretty relentlessly!

Oh, you got that right. If you criticized his spending and entitlement program, you were called a troll or, bizzarely, a RINO because you didn't "defend our president." Conservatives can be as much of hero worshipers as Libs sometimes.

And on your substantive point, Lyndon Baines Bush was the worst big spender in years prior to Obama. He is only "conservative" when compared to Obama's truly insane, Socialist spending plan. Bush was a disaster for limited government, period.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Ha. More nonsense. In a silly attempt to whitewash Dubya’s legacy you conveniently overlook the effect the economic recession played. Obama’s terrible but the comparison is inexact. Nice try.”

Wow, bogus data. The debt increased every year under the Clinton administration. Funny that, despite having a ‘surplus’. The surplus isn’t so, they got it by making some debt ‘not count’.

1992 - 4514.18
1993 - 5365.34
1994 - 5717.97
1995 - 6035.95
1996 - 6351.18
1997 - 6590.71
1998 - 6761.75
1999 - 6974.78
2000 - 7080.52

In eight years, national debt under clinton went from 4.5 trillion to 7 trillion, increasing 56.8 percent.

2000 - 7080.52
2001 - 7320.74
2002 - 7879.78
2003 - 8578.76
2004 - 9331.24
2005 - 9990.33
2006 - 10655.37
2007 - 11355.45
2008 - 12538.60

Or about 77 percent. He was spending 45 percent prior to Pelosi, but Pelosi managed to drive it up from 2007-8 from 45 to 77.

Now for Obama:

2008 - 12538.60
2009 - 14559.52
2010 - 16412.91
2011 - 17626.95
2012 - 19156.18

He’s up 40.5 percent from 2008 in just 3 years. He’s already increased it by 5.1 trillion dollars as of 2011, which is equivalent to the entire government spending as of 1993. 2012 isn’t even over yet, and he’s already up to 19 trillion, which is a 77 percent increase. Obama has already spent more percentage wise over 2008 in 4 years than Bush spent percentage wise over 8.

He’s spent 6.6 trillion dollars so far, equivalent to the total national debt of 1997. He’ll easily coast over to 2000 with 7 trillion, which means that Obama would have spent more than every president prior to Bush. And Bush only spent 5.5 trillion over 8 years, so Obama is easily on course to spend more himself than every other president, combined.

[Gluteus Maximus]

While you’re at it, explain what went down from 02 to 06 when the GOP controlled both Houses in Congress and the White House and still managed to spend like drunken sailors.

Absolutely right on the money! After all the work done to get those yahoos elected, they turned around, stabbed us fiscal conservatives in the back, and spent like a bunch of drunken sailors. The GOP cannot be trusted. Not ever again. What more proof do we need that the GOP is really just a bunch of housebroken 'Rat wannabees than the fact that they just nominated Mittens?

I'd say that the GOP is actually worse than the 'Rats, because at least the 'Rats are in uniform. We know what they are and what they want, so we can mount an effective defense. In contrast, the GOP are really enemies masquerading as conservatives. We fail to sustain any sort of defense from Rove and his "Party of Big Government."

We conservatives are a minority in this country, but we're not so bad at defense. We need to understand that we can't win with the GOP and play defense until things get so bad people will awaken from their two-party delusion.

I'll vote for individual conservatives no matter what letter they have after their name. I voted Ron Paul in the primaries, will likely vote Libertarian in November.

[Forty-Niner]

“While you’re at it, explain what went down from 02 to 06 when the GOP controlled both Houses in Congress and the White House and still managed to spend like drunken sailors.”

The problem is in Congress and the way it writes laws. Programs it establishes streach on into infinity with yearly increases in their budgets. Increased spending may be the result of a combined total of these various programs......

Spending increases on auto-pilot are difficult to slow down. How many times have we heard about programs that the Congress or the President wanting to “cut” by slowing the rate of “increase.” Wanna hear a Democrat/congressman scream? just try to limit the percentage increase for one of their myriad pet programs. Doesn’t matter that the budget increases each and every year, if the percentage is reduced it’s a cut! The whole idea that a current president is soley responsible for the yearly increase in the budget
is fiction. This setup is rigged to shift blame at a politically opportune time with the assistance of a biased Media. “Those mean Republicans want to kill, mom/dad/the kids/grandma/grandpa (pick one) because they want to “cut” a program’s yearly budget increase from 6.5% t0 6,3%.....Horrors!!!!

Honestly neither you nor I can sort this stuff out. As they say in the Movies “Let’s Nuke it from outer space...it’s the only way to be sure.”

Every reformer runs into someone elses sacred cow spending program and the SHTF.

If serious in getting things in order we need to get back to Ground Zero spending wise. Make programs justify their very existance every year with cost benefit analysis......

Pointing fingers at this or that President won’t solve anything.....Most often they are trapped by the system.