Besides, I wasn’t quoting Krugman, I was pointing a chart in one of his posts. You may not like Krugman’s analysis, but you can’t argue with the numbers.

But, as to your actual allegation in the above post (where government jobs will take over 50% of GNP), um again, where are you getting these numbers? Please state a source. Because I’ve never seen those numbers before and they sound made up.

Prove me wrong!

Check my 1137am post for my belief that BHO is a socialist. Why do you have a problem being called a socialist? Your policies seem to be awefully socialist.

And don’t quote paul krugman to me, the man is a raving socialist (he wanted 25% more spending than what BHO proposed) and works for the socialst flagship paper: NYT.

Unless you want me quoting Hannity…

You’re right that Clinton inherited a recession (guess from who), but his economic growth was actually very even throughout both terms (average economic growth of 4% each year in office). Also, just because one inherits a recession doesn’t mean that growth is guaranteed. Especially immediate growth (see: Hoover, etc.). However, Clinton did get immediate growth. Especially with regards to jobs. Check out this chart:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/job-creation/

As to the percentage increase of Clinton’s tax hike, maybe? I’m not sure, but I don’t see how that is especially relevant. All it means is that he took over after three administrations had worked to cutting it down. So his modest tax raise may have seemed bigger than what it actually was.

Anyway, we’re starting to get way off topic. Your complaints against Obama were deficits. The only reason I brought up Clinton was to talk about how he decreased that (which he did). Here’s a nice chart to look at to help:

http://joejolly.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/national-debt-gdp.gif

As you can see, the deficit soared each time a Republican was in office, starting with Reagan. Another interesting statistic – as Republicans like to think of themselves as fiscally responsible.

Anyway, you’re still avoiding how Obama is a socialist or being dishonest or what he’s hiding. No more changing the topic, let’s get a straight response this time. Otherwise I’ll just assume you don’t have an actual response.

No need to waste my time.

Actually, Clinton’s tax increases (1993) came on the tail of a recession, so growth was expected. The real economic growth came after the 1997 tax cuts (written by a republican controlled congress).

And percentage of increase, Clinton’s 1993 WAS the biggest increase. In total percentage of income at the time, yes Carter was the highest, and the only reason the rates were still high under Reagan was his tax cuts were phased in over time (ie, Carter’s fault).

Anyway, read all my above posts, I’m referring to the deficit. In no place do I mention the national debt – in fact, you are the first one to do so. So thanks, but no thanks for the econ 101 lesson. But yes, we have a national debt. We’ve had one off and on – but mostly on – ever since the Revolutionary War.

In no place did I ever say that Clinton had paid it off. That would be ridiculous. So I’m not really sure why you’re bringing that up at all. What I did say, and still stand by, is that he decreased the deficit – inherited from Bush Sr. – and turned it into a surplus. That surplus was then turned back into a deficit by Bush Jr.

As to the Dot Com Crash, I agree, it was a bad thing. And it was, in part, the fault of Clinton – or more specifically Greenspan, Clinton’s Chairman of the Federal Reserve. However, the reason for that bubble – and its pop, cause all bubbles pop – was the capitalist policies of Reagan. You see, Greenspan was a firm believer in the free market, so much so that he openly spoke of his admiration for Ayn Rand.

So yes, Clinton was part responsible, but it was because he was following the economic footsteps of Reagan. That is, no regulations. Which is unfortunate. And while I like things Clinton did, that is one that I didn’t like.

Anyway, if you look at that chart JB provided us, you’ll see that the crash didn’t cause a deficit. It was, Bush’s tax cuts as well as his two wars. One of which we never should have started in the first place (I’ll save that for another time, though).

And finally, Clinton did not have the highest taxes of any administration ever – previous or future. Not even close. Carter gets that prize. In fact, Clinton was pretty close to what Reagan had.

Oh, and under Clinton’s “suffocating” taxes our country had unprecedented economic growth. So I’m not sure how that helps your theory out either.

Way better.

As I am SICK and TIRED of you uberliberals bringing up Clinton as your great savior, please spend a minute looking up a couple of terms:

Budget Deficit: spending more tax dollars than tax income (reduced by conservatives by reducing spending, reduced by Clinton by JACKING UP TAXES MORE THAN AND ANY PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION EVER).

National Debt: money owed by the US government to its investors. NOTE: CLINTON NEVER ELIMINATED THE US DEBT, EVER.

Jesicka, I’m guessing you had no investments at the end of the Clinton administration. There was this little thing called the “DOT COM CRASH”, or were you out off the earth at that time? Not only did I lose a bunch in the market, but I was also involved in retail sales and the economy was on an obvious downturn (read CRASH) before Bubba left office.

Yes, Bush inherited a budget surplus (national dept STILL high), but then this little thing came along, perhaps you heard of it: NINE FRICKIN ELEVEN. Funny thing happens to the deficit when we go to war EVERY FRICKIN TIME! Or were you on a “brain sabbatical” at the time?

p.s. Please don’t confuse conservative and republican: There was ALWAYS outcry at govt overspending by conservatives, not so much always by republicans.

Put down the bong, quit reading DailyKos, and everything will start getting better soon.
“Foreign terrorists”: are you arguing that there are US citizens in Guantanamo? I’m gonna guess you think 9/11 was an inside job, and you believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny. And where do you liberals get 3% weath redistribution? Obama is planning on making government comprise over 50% of our GNP. For you Marxist deniers: if we mostly “produce” government programs, that means we are mostly SOCIALISTS. All of you liberals seem to hate that word, but your desires sure do seem to be awefully socialist.

But, of course, there was no conservative outcry back then. Why would there be? They were in power, who cares about the deficit.

Anyway, my above point still stands (i.e. Obama needed to raise the deficit to recover the economy Bush had destroyed).

Also, what exactly is Obama lying about? Post after post is accusing Obama of lying, behind dishonest, hiding things and of being socialist. Yet time and time again, conservatives aren’t actually able to bring anything up. No actual examples. Or if they do bring up examples, they are dishonest ones, that are easily refuted.

I mean, every time I answer (backed up with stats and facts), I never get a response, only a change in topic or repeated, but very vague, accusations. You keep saying he’s a socialist, but HOW is he a socialist? What is he doing? And please, don’t bring up an example I’ve already refuted, unless you’re going to bring an actual argument backed up with stats or facts.

As to BHO, by trolling do you mean owning? Cause, yeah, I agree.

As to your allegations, I’m not really even sure what you’re talking about. Perhaps you could link to a news article or something that explains it better? You’d do well to follow JB’s example.

As to JB, you must be forgetting a few things. First, when Bush took office he inherited a large surplus (remember those? they were these cool things in the nineties) and a booming economy. Fast-forward to the day he left office, and we had rising deficits and an economy on it’s knees.

So yes, Obama has used funds to restart the economy. He had to – unless you wanted him to be another Herbert Hoover, cutting spending during a recession and turning it into a long, drawn out depression.

However, even though Obama is spending a lot of money now, his budget is to be neutral within a 10 year time table. Which is much, much better than we ever got from Bush. The only time Bush was close to having a neutral budget was when he entered office (i.e. before he could change anything).

Also, I’ve been using numbers, facts and news articles this entire time. You, it would seem, are actually the first conservative participant to do the same. So congrats I guess.

And if you’re seriously comparing Joe the Plumber, whose own party labeled him a complete idiot, to arresting people at peaceful protests that the media never covered, your worldview is either incredibly insular, or you’re very angry.

I’m guessing both. And you don’t know where to direct it.

Annnnd corporations always receive more welfare than the poor. Always. So rail against those deadbeats.

Put your rage to better use. A 3% redistribution of wealth, and putting money into government programs that you’ll probably wind up using, doesn’t equate to socialism. No matter how you try and spin it.

Again, if you have facts, and not ad hominem attacks, fine. But you don’t.

Though it has numbers and we know those make your sensitive parts hurt.

DO THE MATH: if the AVERAGE cost of malpractice insurance is TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR PER DOCTOR, you might want to add that cost into the cost of all of our treatments.

And the way your socacrats want to “decrease our growth curves”? THEY WANT TO STOP ANY INCREASE IN PAYMENTS IN THE FUTURE. That’s right, the government wants to tell what your doctor can charge 10 years from now, forget their increase in costs, research, new/more expensive equipment: THAT’S SOCIALISM. Are you willing to forgo any possibility of a raise for the next year? Even if it helps your fellow socialists?

‘Restricting news outlets’? What an assinine statement. The only ones I saw restricting anything as far as news outlets go were DemoKrats refusing to give statements to FOX news or to debate with a FOX moderator. The ‘mainstream news outlets’ do nothing but transcribe exactly what ObaMao wants them to transcribe. The only reason people know what’s in the socialist Healthcare bill is alternative media (radio and the internet).

‘Arresting dissenters?’ Yeah, we sure saw American citizens being thrown in the slammer left and right for openly calling for assisination, impeachement, etc., and being personally targeted by statements from Bush himself. Oh wait, that was ObaMao investigating ‘Joe the Plumber’ and the Mainstream State-Run Media blackballing him. Or maybe it was ObaMao calling a cop ’stupid’ on national TV without knowing any of the facts. Or maybe that is Glibbs trashing any news media personality that dares to question the ‘dear leader’.

ObaMao to everybod: Get Health care – Government Healthcare. Oh yeah, and if you actually work for a living – pay more so deadbeats can get health care too. If you don’t get it, we sic the IRS on you and fine you. Can’t or don’t want pay the fine for forcing you into govt. healthcare? Well, the IRS solves that too – by jail time. Cap and trade? Bank takeovers? GovernMent Motors? Trillion dollar monopoly money giveaway?

As far as the ‘Whhyy soooo Socialist?’ poster goes, can’t wait to print a bunch out and plaster them up on a wall using a ladder so pinheads like Jessica can pound sand.