This is why we need regulation. This is why Ayn Rand's philosophy is so wrong, and stupid.

We are prey. That is how we look to free marketers.

We, as a people, must use our power as a people to protect ourselves from those that would do us harm. Its kinda the whole damn idea behind being a 'society'.

Nearly thirty years, and they are still pissing on us.

When we stop leaving ourselves wide open to be financially raped by these soulless excuses for humans, when we stop living far beyond our means because of the siren call of easy credit, when we learn to SAVE money again, then we may have a chance. Until then, we're doomed .

they have been successful at creating a society of haves and have nots.

even the black savior has bought into the wall street version of a society.

but we must give credit where credit is due they have done well controlling congress white house and the media. and what most people dont realize the educational system with money for cooperation to teach capitalism the most destructive economic system the world has ever known.

capitalism = wars for profits, imperialism, profits off the sick and needy, profits off prisons, the rape of retirement benefits, the list is long and very immoral.

this country is the very defintion of immorality and corruption of the lower and middle class and neither has a clue what hit them.

in fact the middle class lined up to vote for reagan economics.

dutch reagan hated the middle class and the unions.

if you can control gov and the media it is clear sailing from there on.

check history the have mores have always been able to create a society of have nots.

we have not even began to see the lows we are living on borrowed and printed money now to maintain some level of wealth.

wait till the bottom falls out.

wealth can be as harsh of teacher as poverty what did we americans do with our wealth but have illegal wars?

the sad part the demos think their politicans represent them. they only pretend to represent to get their votes then they go with the corp lobbyists for money to get reelected.

follow the money then you will find who they really represent.

Unfortunately the Republicans have no idea how to manage the economy. They are terrible for the economy and for the debt. Democrats are the best financial managers of this country. Always have been and always will be. The Republicans always buy growth through using debt.

Let me give you a few numbers (sorry the table does not come out well on here, but I think you can see the numbers).

*President* *Start debt/GDP* *End Debt/GDP* *Increase Debt* *Increase Debt/GDP*
Roosevelt/Truman D 117.5% 93.2% 0.05 -24.3%
Truman Harry Truman 93.2% 71.3% 0.01 -21.9%
Eisenhower1 Dwight Eisenhower R 71.3% 60.5% 0.01 -10.8%
Eisenhower2 Dwight Eisenhower R 61.5% 55.1% 0.02 -5.4%
Kennedy/JohnsonD 55.1% 46.9% 0.03 -8.2%
Johnson Lyndon Johnson D 46.9% 38.6% 0.05 -8.3%
Nixon1 Richard Nixon R 38.6% 35.7% 0.07 -2.9%
Nixon2 Nixon/Ford R 35.7% 35.8% 0.19 +0.1%
Carter Jimmy Carter D 35.8% 32.6% 0.18 -3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan R 32.6% 43.9% 0.65 +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan R 43.9% 53.1% 1.04 +9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush R 53.1% 66.2% 1.40 +13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton D 66.2% 65.6% 1.12 -0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 65.6% 57.4% 0.42 -8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 57.4% 64.3% 1.88 +6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 64.3% 75.5% 3.02 +11.7%

From the numbers you can see that the national debt as a percentage of GDP fell under every single Democrat since Roosevelt. You cannot say the same for the Republicans. Eisenhower was the last Republican to lower the debt as a percentage of GDP. Debt as a percentage of GDP went up under Nixon, Reagan (both terms), George H W Bush, and under both terms of George W Bush. In fact, the debt went up astronomically under Reagan and both Bushes. I would say this is pretty damning evidence that the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsiblity and the Republicans are the big spenders and unfiscally disciplined.

It is also well know that both the stock market and the economy do much better under Democrats. Check the empirical evidence. See these links:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/ind...

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/elect...

http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929

So not only does the history tell us that the Democrats almost always cut the debt, but they also promote a strong stock market and grow the economy. They do not deficit spend for a better economy like the Republicans do.

If you are worried about the economy and the deficit why would you ever want to vote for a Republican, as their economic track record is terrible. I think Cheney was said that Reagan proved the deficit don't matter. Typical for the Republican party.

As far as Obama and the deficit.

The current deficits the country faces were years in the making and they can almost entirely be blamed on Bush.

The national debt itself doubled under Bush from about $4 trillion to $8 trillion. Bush left Obama with a 2009 budget deficit of $1.3 trillion, which was the number for 2009 before Obama even took office. Bush left Obama two unresolved wars, the worst economy since the great depression, and a huge debt.

I suggest you read this very good analysis of were the expected deficits and increase in the debt has really come from. It is analysis of what the CBO has said on the debt issue and who is to blame. Here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/ec...

The deficit that is expected over the next three years can almost entirely be blamed on Bush, even if you factor in the stimulus bill. Healthcare reform is paid for.

Bush's deficit spending and the Bush recession are the biggest cause of the current expected deficits. Obama's agenda is estimated to only responsible for 3% of the increase in the deficit over the next three years and the stimulus plan another 7%, which never would have had to be done without the Bush recession. So at max Obama may be able to held account for 10% of the deficit, which took many years to build. In fact, if the stimulus helps pull the economy earlier out of the recession or limits its damage, the stimulus spending may have had a net positive impact on the deficit; ie. it helped tax revenues recover sooner.

Here is a summary of how it breaks out. There was a $800 million surplus when Clinton left office. Through 2009 to 2012 the country is expected to run a +$1.2 trillion deficit per year. Therefore there has been a $2 trillion swing in the deficit since Clinton's surplus.

This is how the deficit happened.
37% of the $2 trillion swing in the deficit came from the recession. ie. reduced tax revenue
33% came from legislation signed by Bush, including tax cuts and prescription drug benefits that were not paid for
20% came from Obama extending the Bush policies like the wars and tax cuts; but also the TARP
7% came from the stimulus bill
3% comes from the Obama agenda on healthcare, education, energy and etc.

Net-net more than 90% of the deficit expected between 2009 and 2012 can be blamed either directly or indirectly on the Bush years. The Bush recession, the Bush wars, the Bush tax cuts, unfunded drug bill, etc. In fact, you could argue that the 7% the stimulus bill will contribute is also Bush's fault because without the Bush recession there would be no need for the stimulus bill. And the stimulus bill is not just a negative contributor to the deficit, it also is likley helping tax revenues to recover, as it helps the economy.

"Twenty-six years ago they were doing it. Twenty-six years later, they still are."

For twenty six plus years I've been talking about it.