13 Comments Add your own

• 1. Debunked  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 7:39 am

  

  I don’t know. Electing a high-school drop out financed by his wife’s money over the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act as well as work toward real campaign finance reform is pretty much the definition of insanity.

  Outside of that, the rest of the seats Republicans won is fine by me. Now they’ll either actually have to do something in government as opposed to obstructing everything – or at least their obstructionist tactics will become much more apparent.

• 2. Fuzz Martin  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 9:56 am

  

  If Einstein’s definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” then wouldn’t reelecting an extremist, lifelong political hack whose party has nearly bankrupted this country be truer to the definition of insanity?

  I mean, it’s electing that versus changing course and electing a successful business man with an outlook and experiences similar to his struggling constituents… Hmmmph… doesn’t sound too “insane” to me.

• 3. John Foust  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 10:30 am

  

  Fuzz, in what way are your experiences similar to Ron Johnson’s? You believe in Ayn Rand except for the atheist parts?

• 4. Debunked  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am

  

  “whose party has nearly bankrupted this country be truer to the definition of insanity?”

  Really? Do the math did ya? Numbers straight from the treasury: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

  1981: $998 billion
  1989: $2.86 trillion
  1993: $4.41 trillion
  2001: $5.81 trillion
  2009: $11.9 trillion
  2010: $13.6 trillion

  So… Since 1981, the national debt went up:

  Reagan: $1.86 trillion
  Bush Sr: $1.55 trillion
  Clinton: $1.40 trillion
  Bush Jr: $6.1 trillion
  Obama: $1.7 trillion

  Or… $9.5 trillion for Republicans and… $3.1 trillion for Democrats – half of which from Obama is due to the 2010 Stimulus and TARP bills, where we all know a large portion of Obama’s 2010 budget was decided under Bush, as was Bush’s 2001 budget from Clinton, and so on. But I’ll let those slide for now.

  So Democrats are the sole party who has bankrupted us? Really? You’re going to seriously make that claim?

  Yup, sanity, right there.

• 5. Fuzz Martin  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 11:35 am

  

  Between September of 2007 and, well, yesterday, that money was spent by the Democratic majority in congress. $4.5 Trillion in three years under the Democrats. That’s friggin’ insane.

  And, John, my experiences are similar to Johnson’s in that I actually work in Wisconsin, I have not spent my entire life as a politician, I am not paid by the government, and I know what it is like to have to tighten my belt under the current economic situations. I’ve had eight weeks of furlough in the last two years, mostly triggered by GM skipping town in Janesville (Feingold’s home town, no less).

• 6. Debunked  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm

  

  Yeah, so ignore the numbers I spoon fed you off a silver platter and make up some arbitrary statement that still pins all problems straight on the Democrats while ignoring the fact that Bush and the 49% control of the House and Senate Republicans had in 2006-2008.

  Republicans can do not wrong and Democrats are all evil.

  Hurray for modern intelligence and critical thinking!

• 7. Fuzz Martin  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm

  

  Actually, I took the numbers straight from your link. (Though I didn’t take your spoon fed numbers without looking at the link, first, because I was afraid it was the same spoon you use to stir your Kool-Aid). The biggest jump by far has come from your congress. Again, $4.5 TRILLION in 3 years. But we should have let Congress keep spending, right? That certainly would have gotten us out of this mess.

  Stupid me for forgetting that if your position doesn’t jive with a democrat’s, then you’re automatically a know-nothing twit. You know, because the left is a party of accepting, free-thinking individuals.

• 8. Debunked  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 1:36 pm

  

  Again, the FY2007 $1 trillion deficit budget was planned by the 2006 congress. Since you’re cherry-picking a very small time-line to look at, you need to account for that.

  So, if you want to count the deficit that can be placed under Bush+Obama/Congress then you should be looking at the 2008-2010 numbers only in the chart, or $3.5 trillion.

  Indeed, it was actually the final year of a Bush+Republican set budget that we had the largest deficit in American history at $1.02 trillion. After that, the deficit is $900 billion and $660 billion.

  Further, let’s look at congressional control versus presidential control of deficits over the past 30 years (you know, to somewhat filter out the boom/bust cycles of economic spending away from a recessive era as you like to cherry pick from).

  Again, I will say that I have not accounted for the 1-year gap between budgets in the following, but on a cursory glance, I believe doing that would actually hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

  National Debt increases versus congressional control:
  Year – Senate / House control — National debt at start
  1981-1986: R / D — $1 trillion (baseline)
  1987-1994: D / D — $2.35 trillion
  1994-2006: R / R (tie in Senate for one session 2001-2002) — $4.69 trillion
  2007-2010: D / D — $9 trillion
  2010+ : D / R — $13.5 trillion

  By Congress:
  1981-1986 (both parties) — $1.35 trillion ($0.675 trillion added to each parties total)
  1987-1994 (D) — $2.45 trillion
  199-2006: (R) — $4.31 trillion
  2007-2010: (D) — $4.9 trillion
  (R) $4.985 trillion
  (D) $8.025 trillion

  30 years
  18 Democrat = $0.45 trillion / year
  12 Republican = $0.42 trillion / year
  Analysis: Democratic congress spends 7% more annually on the average since 1981.

  By President:
  1981-1988: Reagan: $1.86 trillion
  1989-1992: Bush Sr: $1.55 trillion
  1993-2000: Clinton: $1.40 trillion
  2001-2008: Bush Jr: $6.1 trillion
  2009-2010: Obama: $1.7 trillion
  (R) $9.5 trillion
  (D) $3.1 trillion

  30 years
  20 Republican = $0.475 trillion / year
  10 Democrat = $0.31 trillion / year
  Analysis: Republican president spends 53% more annually on the average than Democratic president since 1981.

  Note, I am not saying Democrats are fiscally responsible. I am saying neither party has demonstrated fiscal responsibility in modern political history and by claiming Republicans are fiscally responsible is just illustrating a blatant disregard for any evidence at hand.

  Your ball, Fuzz.

• 9. John Foust  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm

  

  But yeah, Debunked, they promised not to pull the football away at the last minute like they did last time.

• 10. Debunked  |  November 3rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm

  

  Correction. I was off by one year in my direct response to Fuzz. Yes, Bush/Obama+Democratic congress are responsible for $4.5 trillion over the past three years. Of course, $1.9 trillion of that is due to the Stimulus + TARP package in the 2008-2009 budget year ($1.9 trillion deficit being the largest, not the 2007 $1 trillion one I mentioned above).

  Of course, as we all know, TARP wasn’t exactly Democrats only, and all of my above math comparing deficit under congressional control versus presidential control still stands as, I believe, does the comment that the math would skew more toward the Democrats favor if I were to account for the one year gap in said math above.

  Thus my point that Republicans are no more fiscally responsible than Democrats and, indeed, seem to spend far more than Democrats when controlling the White House and scarcely less when controlling Congress stands.

  “But yeah, Debunked, they promised not to pull the football away at the last minute like they did last time.”

  Yeah, I’ll believe it when I see it. Fool me once… Shame on you. Fool me.. can’t get fooled again.

• 11. John Foust  |  November 4th, 2010 at 10:11 am

  

  The other thing you can do is declare that Bush and Tommy Thompson weren’t True Republicans. That’ll help dissolve that cognitive dissonance stuffiness in your sinuses!

• 12. Elliot  |  November 4th, 2010 at 10:22 am

  

  Or…both sides could just stop spending so much of my children and grandchildren’s future earnings to “bring democracy” to people in Afghanistan and Iran who don’t want it (or know what to do with it), bailout badly run banks and businesses, pay rich farmers not to grow crops, and pay social security to retired millionaires…..while – at the same time – enriching China.

  Go ahead…squabble about which set of irresponsible asses are more responsible for borrowing and spending us into oblivion. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not letting either side off the hook.

• 13. John Foust  |  November 4th, 2010 at 10:46 am

  

  Then don’t tell me everything will get better if we just elect more Republicans and fewer Democrats, and don’t suggest that the TEA Party candidates have any more plan than the others, and would be less likely to mutate into the same congresscritters we’ve had before.

  Walker, Johnson and Kleefisch were cheered for having no detailed plans. Each seems a little light on brains, each in their own way. You think that’s a better situation? You’ll just cluck and say shuckey-darns in two years when it’s clear that they’re no better than any previous incarnations?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.