The Economist Criticizes the Republicans

[maxx]

http://www.businessinsider.com/shame...blicans-2011-7
"...
The Republicans, the Economist points out, would rather disrupt the US economy and put the country into default than compromise on a long-term deficit and debt reduction plan.
This behavior is an abdication of the Republicans' responsibilities as elected officials. It puts the Republicans' self-interest ahead of the country's..."
http://www.economist.com/node/189286...ar/shameonthem
"...America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political..."

[firstandten]

Of course its political. Thats why the people are frustated. They want to see problems solved not politicized. For the Repubs its about getting back into the WH. But why do that when they have the Supreme Court which just might be the most powerful branch of gov't going now days.

[ghettopalmetto]

Of course its political. Thats why the people are frustated. They want to see problems solved not politicized. For the Repubs its about getting back into the WH. But why do that when they have the Supreme Court which just might be the most powerful branch of gov't going now days.

Well, that and I think they're trying to "prove" that shrinking taxes and government as little as possible is somehow "correct".

[gazhekwe]

It seems to me that the move to demonize the government and bring it down leans toward sedition.

[maxx]

http://www.businessinsider.com/gover...pending-2011-7
"...

As you can see, from 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline..."

[oladub]

maxx, According to Wikipedia; Henry Blodget, who wrote the article, is an American former equity research analyst, currently banned from the securities industry". "In early 2000, days before the dot-com bubble burst, Blodget personally invested $700,000 in tech stocks, only to lose most of it in the years that followed. In 2001, he accepted a buyout offer from Merrill Lynch and left the firm."

One of the responses already pointed out, the rate of increase of spending under Obama is 84.6% greater than under Bush. Bush was just there longer. Also, the graph shows that the rate of spending declined for two time periods under Bush but not for long.

I agree with your main point though. Spending did increase too much under Bush. Instead of even arguing about whether totals or rates of increase are more important to compare two spendthrift presidents, how about just cutting federal spending and raising taxes on the rich to the same point there were when Bush took over from Clinton? We could even account for inflation and population increases to be fair. Then you should be happy being able to tax the rich and get rid of all of Bush's spending increases you were complaining about.

[maxx]

That would be a start in the right direction. Unfortunately, that would entail the U.S. walking away from its huge "embassy" in Iraq which is going to have thousands of employees and from the situation in Afghanistan. I think we can live without a few of the hundreds of military bases we have around the world.

[Hypestyles]

That would be a start in the right direction. Unfortunately, that would entail the U.S. walking away from its huge "embassy" in Iraq which is going to have thousands of employees and from the situation in Afghanistan. I think we can live without a few of the hundreds of military bases we have around the world.

why is it that no administration is willing to commit to a scaling down of the overall military.. for all the talk about cutting down "big government", the military is considered a sacred cow.

[ghettopalmetto]

why is it that no administration is willing to commit to a scaling down of the overall military.. for all the talk about cutting down "big government", the military is considered a sacred cow.

The last time a president cut military spending, Junior Bush vilified his predecessor for making our country "weak"...

...weak enough to have drone aircraft, GPS-guided bombs and missiles, and bunker busters available for deployment to Afghanistan in the fall of 2001.