5 Liberal Talking Points 
MakingThe Rounds On 
Twitter Debunked In  
One Handy Post!

Liberal Talking Point #1:

Raising Taxes To Send More Money To Washington So Politicians Can Spend It Is Best Way To Get This Economy Growing

Recent conversations on Twitter have convinced me many Progressives are deliberately short-circuiting their thinking on how we're ever going to get the economy growing again and put America back to work.

Progressives have a deep and abiding belief in the THEORY that it's Washington that drives the economy, that the politicians up there DOING THINGS with the tax money sent up there is what causes this country to 'go'.  They honestly believe this country's prosperity originates with politicians in Washington.

And nothing could be further from the truth.

"Well of course us political elites here in Washington are better at creating jobs than businessmen 

in the private sector. What? No, I've never worked in the private sector.....

wait why are you all looking at me like that?"

For 3 1/2 years we've watched Obama & Co. try to promote 'job creation' and 'kick-start the economy' by spending vast amounts of money taken from the private sector.  Over $1 trillion at last count. $820 billion in new spending in one stimulus bill alone.

It's like a natural law on the left: sending more money to Washington is ALWAYS the answer to a better economy; leaving more money in the private sector is NEVER the answer.  The greedy rich bastards will just SIT on the money, so Washington HAS to take it so something good can be done with it.

They only trust wealth when it's under the control of the political elite class in Washington.  In private hands they actually view it as a net negative.

Liberal Talking Point #2:

Cutting Tax Rates DOES NOT Lead To Gov't Collecting MORE Tax Revenue During Resulting Economic Boom

The problem with this kind of thinking is that actual experience doesn't bear it out.  The wealthy do NOT sit on their money when you cut the tax rates.  Here's just 3 examples where tax rate cuts lead to economic booms that also led to the Gov't collecting MORE in taxes than they were at the higher rates, courtesy of Peter Ferrara at The American Spectator:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/08/romneys-tax-plan-is-a-winner/print

Kennedy:

These tax policies enjoy a history of bipartisan success. JFK proposed legislation to reduce income tax rates across the board by 30 percent, explaining. 

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates….[A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits. 

Kennedy's proposed tax cuts were adopted in 1964, and pulled the top rate from 91 percent down to 70 percent, while reducing the lower rates. The next year, economic growth soared by 50 percent, and income tax revenues increased by 41 percent! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years. U.S. News and World Report exclaimed: "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place." Arthur Okun, the administration's chief economic advisor, estimated that the tax cuts expanded the economy in just two years by 10 percent above where it would have been.

Reagan

Reagan and succeeding Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the working poor and on what the Left calls the working class, and they almost abolished them on the middle class. 

It began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972. Reagan proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for low-income workers. As president, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board by 25 percent. He also indexed the tax brackets to prevent inflation from pushing working people into higher rates. 

In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for middle- and low-income families all the way down to 15 percent. That law also doubled the personal exemption, shielding a higher proportion of income from taxation for lower income workers than for higher income workers. 

After the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented, the economy took off on a 25-year economic boom (from 1982 to 2007). It was interrupted by two short, shallow recessions, but it is widely recognized in the economic literature, and by the National Bureau of Economic Research, as one long boom. During the first seven years alone, the economy grew by almost one-third, or the equivalent of adding an entire West Germany, the third largest economy in the world at the time, to the U.S.

Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" adopted a child tax credit of $500 that also reduced tax liabilities for low-income people more than high earners. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people can get the full credit even if they do not pay $1,000 in federal income taxes. Bush also adopted a new 10-percent tax bracket for the lowest income workers, which reduced their federal income tax rate by one-third. 

This is how we reached the point at which, by 2007, after 25 years of Reaganomics and before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40 percent of earners, on net and as a group, paid less than 0 percent of federal income taxes, according to official IRS data, as reported recently by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead of paying at least some income taxes to help support the federal government, the federal government paid them cash through the income tax code. That same year, the middle 20 percent, the true middle class, paid less than 5 percent of all federal income taxes.

George W. Bush

The Bush tax cuts quickly ended the 2001 recession, despite the contractionary economic impacts of 9/11, and the economy continued to grow for another 73 months. In the four years after the rate cuts were fully implemented, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs, and the unemployment rate fell from over 6 percent to 4.4 percent. Real economic growth over the next three years doubled from the average for the prior three years, to 3.5 percent. 

Business investment, which had declined for nine straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7 percent per quarter. That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost doubled. Capital gains tax revenues doubled by 2005, despite Bush's 25 percent rate cut!

Cut the tax rates, collect double the revenue you were getting at the higher rate - just 3 years later.  Imagine that.

And yet even after you spell this out, many progressives just dismiss the evidence out of hand.  They don't need to even take a real look at it; it doesn't FIT their worldview, so of course there is no reason to look at it - it can't possibly be true, so why bother?

The Progressive can sit there and keep sputtering "Does....NOT...compute!" but that doesn't do a thing to change the history or the facts.

If you want to twist a Progressive into mental knots: after getting them to strongly deny that the Kennedy, Reagan & Bush tax rate cuts had ANYTHING to do with the economic booms that followed, with low unemployment and the increasing tax revenue collected, ask them to explain what the REAL cause was.  What was it that caused these big economic boom times of sustained growth, anyway? Do they know?

THEY INVARIABLY TRY TO CLAIM THESE ECONOMIC BOOMS AND PERIODS OF SUSTAINED GROWTH WERE CAUSED BY TAX INCREASES AND GOV'T SPENDING.  In other words - political elites in Washington 'doing stuff'.

Washington HAS to play a direct role in this.  There's just no other way.  They won't even seriously consider any thought that the cause lies outside of Washington political elites spending money somewhere.

So they have no clear idea what it really was that caused those economic booms....but BY GOD THEY DO 'KNOW' WHAT DIDN'T CAUSE IT! And they will never give an inch on that point.  Ever.

Liberal Talking Point #3: 

Because Republicans Won't Agree To Immediate Tax Increases In Exchange For Future Spending Cuts, They Don't Care About Deficit

Right now Democrats are trying the same old trick of trying to get Republicans to agree to immediate tax increases in exchange for the promise of future spending cuts.  So of course Progressives on Twitter are demanding to know when Republicans will give in and agree to immediate tax hikes in exchange for future spending cuts.  

Ann Coulter already reminded everyone yet again why you can NEVER trust Democrats who are trying the same old 'Lucy With The Football' trick of offering a trade of immediate tax increases today in exchange for spending cuts tomorrow: 

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/11/23/ill-gladly-pay-you-tuesday-for-a-tax-increase-today/

Reneging on Reagan:

At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes. 

Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes. 

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts. 

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.” 

Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending. 

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them. 

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats. 

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today. 

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.” 

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire. 

Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

Reneging on George H.W. Bush: 

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later. 

Pretending to care about the deficit — created exclusively by their own profligate spending — Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a “balanced budget” package with both spending cuts and tax increases. 

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his “read-my-lips, no-new-taxes” campaign pledge. 

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

So yes, let's hope Republicans fall for a third attempt to kick that football, shall we?  No, this time Dems will actually have to do the spending cuts and after we actually CUT THE TAX RATES to get the economy moving again, we'll talk about what taxes to raise a few years down the road.

Liberal Talking Point #4: 

Tax Cuts Must 'Pay For Themselves'; Bush's Didn't So It's Long Past Time For Them To End

Also prevalent on Twitter right now is the rhetorical trick of claiming that tax rate cuts lead to 'lost revenue' and so they need to 'pay for' themselves.

In fact, even if you bought into this rhetorical confusion of tax cuts having to 'pay for themselves', the economic booms that followed the Kennedy, Reagan & Bush tax cuts would have indeed 'paid for' those rate cuts.

Peter Beinart, contemplating how smart he is

Here's Peter Beinart at the Daily Beast trying to sell the idea that the Bush tax cuts cost the Federal Gov't over $2 trillion in lost revenue:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/18/debt-ceiling-crisis-gop-has-double-amnesia-on-deficits-regulation.html

George W. Bush and his congressional allies pushed through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, added more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

Beinart must not have noticed the federal revenues climbing from 2003-2007 after the economy expanded and grew after the taxcuts took effect:

As anyone who remembers what happened to the economy in late 2001 through 2002, the economy took a $2 trillion hit from the 9-11 attacks, not the Bush tax cuts.  Beinart has simply quoted the OMB on how much tax revenue was lost during this period and laid it solely at the feet of the Bush tax cuts.  He tries to palm off that big dip in federal tax revenues you see in that chart above, from 2001-2003 as being a direct result of Bush lowering the tax rates, completely flushing 9-11 and it's economic impact right down the memory-hole.  Not to mention he's also peddling the fallacy that lowering tax rates has to be 'paid for'.

The tax cuts actually HELPED THE ECONOMY REBOUND from the 9-11 hit. Revenues hit a peak of over $2.7 trillion in 2008 before plunging because of the recession. But don't wait for Peter Beinart to point this out to you.  He'll try to sell you the idea that the economic boom from 2003-2007 happened IN SPITE of the Bush tax cuts, but he gets hazy if you try to press him as to what the actual cause of that boom was.

Liberal Talking Point #5: 

It's The Gov't's Most Important Job To 'Fix' The 'Problem' of 'Income Inequality' In This Country

Another prevalent trend on Twitter with Progressives is the constant caterwauling over 'income inequality' and how Washington isn't doing enough to address this 'problem'.

It needs to be remembered at all times: for Progressives raising taxes is never about generating more revenue for the Government; it's about FAIRNESS and the Gov't exercising it's supposed role in 'fixing' the 'problem' of 'income inequality' by engaging in wealth redistribution.


Let me remind everyone in case they forgot or they've been brainwashed: it's not the Government's job to 'fix' 'income inequality' through wealth redistribution through taxation or ANYTHING ELSE.

If you really think it is, please cite the section in the Constitution that spells out the role of the Federal Government in this.

This is a sophistry, an invention and it's far past time it was laid to rest.  It's not the Governments job to force or cause economic equality between citizens.  You do not have a 'right' to equal financial outcome with anybody else.  Anyone who told you did was either ignorant or lying to you.

Obama's Palace Guard Rushes

To Save Him From His 

Latest 'Gaffe'

I put "gaffe" in quotes because as we all know by now, these aren't gaffes or mistakes at all; these statements are where Obama says precisely what he believes & then his political handlers & his media enablers rush to 'explain' what he really meant.

http://www.drudgereport.com

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-lets-repeat-auto-rescue-with-every-manufacturing-131566.html

Naturally, the MSM immediately realized what a stunningly telling thing it would be for the President to talk about massive transfers of taxpayer funds to industry to 'help them build that'.

Ace at Ace of Spades wonders when we can start taking Obama's own words at face value:

http://minx.cc/?post=331789

Anyone notice a pattern continuing from 2008...? Obama continuously expresses his strong preference for European socialism -- "redistribute the wealth," "you didn't build that," let's do bailouts "with every industry" -- and the media is always Johnny-On-The-Spot to insist to you your ears did not just hear what they just heard. 

At what point do we begin crediting the alleged super-genius and supposed master orator of our time with comprehending the words that come tumbling out of his corrupt mouth? 

Is Obama a big boy? Does he wear his big boy pants? Then let him choose his own big boy words, and stop trying to tell us he meant something other than what he said.

He then goes on to point out how Politico rushed to 'clarify' what Obama meant:

Politico has now "fixed" the story, because they claim they were "unclear" about Obama's intent, about his main thrust. Although they don't say so, they're attempting to now say Obama did not mean he wants to heavily invest government money in every industry -- even though his actual examples are about precisely that (subsidies for the wind farm industry, for example).

Obama wants to use government $ to 'help them build that' - he's being entirely consistent here, but now watch the MSM rush to convince people they didn't hear what they heard.

Do The People Making These 

Obama Ads Have An 

Internet Connection Or Not? 

I'm assuming they'll engage in basic research FIRST before they put out an ad.  After all, it costs money to make these ads and then you have to pay big $$$ to have them run on various media sites.

Last week it was MoveOn.Org rolling out an ad that made the claim the Romney's collected a $77,000 deduction on Ann's dressage horse.  

MoveOn.Org debuted that ad on August 2nd.

The only problem? That claim had been thoroughly DEBUNKED weeks before.  Here's Lee Stranahan tracking down how the smear got started and cataloging every Lefty site that passed it on without doing even basic research. And he was doing this back on July 13.  By that time even the sites that had originally started the smear had made corrections and admitted they'd gotten it wrong:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/13/Beating-A-Dead-Horse-The-Left-Media-Lies-About-Romney-Taxes

We're not talking like a few DAYS before that ad was rolled out.  Anybody who spent 5 minutes researching the claim on the internet would have learned the claim had been debunked over a month before.  It never had any truth to it; the only thing that got it started was the same thing that kept it going for weeks in some circles: ignorance and people finding it 'too good to check'.

Now another PAC shilling for Obama has put out a new ad that's selling another debunked smear, only this one is even OLDER than the one about the $77,000 tax break.  

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/07/obamas-sleaziest-ad-yet-romney-kinda-sorta-killed-a-mans-wife-by-closing-down-his-steel-plant/

It's been a matter of public record for months that Romney left Bain in 1999.  Yet watch what this ad put out by Priorities USA claims:

Romney leaves Bain in 1999.
Steel plant is closed down in 2001;
Soptic's wife passes away from cancer in 2006.

So yeah.....Romney's fault.  Obvious, right?

They've gone RIGHT BACK to claiming Mitt's responsible for business closings that occurred after he left Bain.  They already tried this and got caught, yet they've gone right back to it.

Even IF Romney HAD been at Bain during this time, this attack is a non-starter.

In private equity firms like Bain you can't save every business.  It's not like the federal government which never gives up or ends a program and just keeps shoveling millions more of taxpayer's money into it.  Private equity firms are in business to make a profit. Sometimes you have to restructure a company by letting workers go; you save the company but some people lose jobs.  And sometimes - like in the case of the steel plant being discussed here - you can't save the business.  Government can subsidize failure with other people's money as long as they can politically get away with it, but private sector businesses don't have that option.

When Obama & Co. took over General Motors, fired thousands of people by closing hundreds of GM dealerships, restructured the company by reducing it's size, and saved money by cutting lose a bunch of non-union pensions, they were doing EXACTLY what Bain does, except they were doing it as the State, not a private business.

It's time to ask: do the people putting these ads together have an internet connection or not? Can they not bother to spend like 10 minutes doing basic research on something before spending big $$$ on something like this that is so easily debunked?

If they want to keep making it THIS easy to debunk their BS, hey I'm all for that.  I'm just wondering why they don't even seem to be trying any more.

LATE BREAKING DEVELOPMENT:  At the time of the GM takeover, there was a big stink over the fact that 20,000 GM workers had their pensions gutted.  People noticed all the UNION workers at GM didn't have their pensions gutted, just those that weren't union members.

The Administration INSISTED at the time they weren't responsible for making this decision.  And now evidence has turned up that they lied to Congress under oath about this:

http://minx.cc/?post=331715

UPDATE:  No basic fact checking at all. None. Zero. Zip. Bubkis.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/07/cnn-wife-of-steelworker-in-new-obama-super-pac-ad-still-had-job-and-health-insurance-after-he-lost-his/

CNN does the actual fact-checking that Team Obama couldn't be bothered to do:

Soptic's wife still had health insurance through her own job at another company, which she kept AFTER he lost his at the steel plant.  #EPIC FAIL there, Team Obama.

UPDATE II: After this latest exceptionally vicious smear attack ad blew up in their faces in all of one day, even the people who put it together are distancing themselves from it, claiming they have no idea who didn't do the due diligence:

http://minx.cc/?post=331750

Legally Team Obama can't coordinate with a PAC; and yet that appears to be exactly what's happened here.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/08/video-obama-campaign-now-pretending-it-didnt-know-details-of-steelworkers-story-after-featuring-him-in-two-ads/

Via Politico. Remember, thanks to the lame legal fictions of campaign finance law, the Obama campaign is forced to pretend that the Obama Super PAC responsible for yesterday’s smear heard ’round the world is entirely independent of it rather than a wholly owned subsidiary. What you’re about to see is the absurdity of that fiction taken to its logical conclusion. So eager is lifelike talking-points robot Stephanie Cutter to keep the campaign’s fingerprints off the cheap lies in the PAC ad that she claims at 4:00 below not to know the facts about when Soptic’s wife got sick or when she died. Minor problem: The campaign itself featured Soptic in not one but two ads several months ago and had him tell the story of his wife’s death after he lost his insurance during a conference call with — ta da — Stephanie Cutter. 

http://www.therightscoop.com/busted-obama-campaign-caught-lying-about-the-soptic-story/

UPDATE III:  Somebody got around to noticing the relevant fact that while Romney had left Bain in 1999, it was OBAMA BUNDLER Jonathan Lavine who was actually RUNNING Bain when the GST steel plant was closed: 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/19/Obama-bundler-Bain-Capital

Size of US Federal Gov't Doubled

From 2000-2011 But Let's Keep

Talking About The 

RICH NOT PAYING THEIR

FAIR SHARE OF TAXES

Last year Sen. Tom Coburn when on a Sunday morning talk show and ended making the claim the spending was so far out of control in Washington that the size of the US federal government had actually DOUBLED in just 10 years - from 2001 to 2011.  

Intrigued by this claim, Politifact decided to investigate to see if Coburn's claim was true: 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/05/tom-coburn/sen-tom-coburn-says-government-twice-size-it-was-d/

Such was the hue and cry raised by liberals after Politifact rated Coburn's claim "Mostly True" that they felt they needed to 're-examine' it and revise downward to 'Half True'. 

Adjusted for inflation, Coburn's 10 year window is missed by several months, so yes he got that wrong.  It actually took 11 years for the Federal Gov't to balloon to 2X it's former size.  

AAAHH HAH HA HA...You're WRONG, Coburn!!

Liberals everywhere rejoiced that Coburn had been proven wrong!  It took 11 years, not 10 like he said!  Uhmmmmm.........yay?

See, if Coburn is correct, and the reason we are now having $1 trillion + deficits every year is because of exploding levels of spending, this undercuts the constant Progressive argument put forth by people like Michael Moore that the real problem here is not taxing the rich enough to cover the gap.  

This would mean the real problem isn't RICH PEOPLE in the private sector who live outside of Washington.  

And that just won't do.  It cuts through and exposes all this class warfare BS we've been hearing for exactly what it is: an attempt to deflect responsibility for what politicians in Washington did by holding out private sector scapegoats.  

Most people have not taken the time to research just how the national debt exploded from the $5 trillion it was when Bush entered office, into the staggering $15 trillion + it is today. 

Well I'm not most people.  Here's the research: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

GROWTH OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET:

2012 United States federal budget - $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama) 2011 United States federal budget - $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama) 2010 United States federal budget - $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama) 2009 United States federal budget - $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush) 2008 United States federal budget - $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush) 2007 United States federal budget - $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush) 2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush) 2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush) 2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush) 2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush) 2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush) 2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton) 2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton) 1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton) 1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton) 1997 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton) 1996 United States federal budget - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

I've bolded the section where Bush had a Republican controlled Congress to work with. Note also the Wikipedia entry on the final 2 years of Bush's term are simply wrong: his final 2 budgets submitted to the Democratic controlled Congress were not passed. Instead Congress under Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid used Continuing Resolutions to fund the government.  This way, they did not have to lay out a budget in which they had to show the public all the spending increases they were doing.  Bush would lay out his budget with it's spending increases made plain, but the Democrats found a better solution to make all the spending increases they wanted without having to take any political heat for it.  Simply don't do a budget - problem solved! 

In fact, they like this trick so much they've done it for over 3 years now, circumventing the law by not passing a budget for well over 1,000 days.

In Bush's first year total federal spending topped out at $1.9 trillion. In the last year he had a say on how much got spent, it was $2.8 trillion. So from the 2002 fiscal year to the 2007 fiscal year, Bush and the Republicans added $900 billion to the federal budget.

Note from 2007-2011, a 5 year period, the Democrats managed to grow the federal budget from $2.8 trillion to $3.8 trillion.  So people unhappy about the growth of the federal budget under Bush have even MORE reason to be upset with it under the Democrats since those 2006 mid-terms.  From going up $900 billion in 6 years to going up $1 trillion in 5 is not exactly 'progress'.  

You can thank the results of another midterm election - 2010 - for the fact the federal budget was actually forced to DROP IN SIZE for once, from $3.8 trillion in 2011 to $3.7 trillion in 2012. 

 GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL DEBT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

When Bush entered office in 2000, the federal debt was just over $5 trillion. When Democrats got control of the country's purse strings in 2006, it was $8 trillion. And a lot of people didn't like what Bush was doing with the debt from 2000-2006. Plenty of conservatives complained about what the Republicans were doing; their staying home in disapproval in 2006 had a lot to do with the Democrats winning control.

But this turned out to be counter-productive; if you didn't like a Republican controlled Congress adding an additional $3 trillion to the public debt in 6 years, stand back. The Democrats were about to show you how to REALLY GO ABOUT IT.

At the end of the 2006 fiscal year the debt was $8.4 trillion. In 2012, it's presently over $15 trillion. Politicians in Washington added over $7 trillion in just 6 years, a clip of over a trillion a year in new debt with no end in sight.

The $248 billion deficit in 2006 was Bush's largest; the following year in 2007 it had shrunk to $161 billion. With the economy rebounding from the tax cuts it likely would have continued shrinking had not the 2007 housing bubble bursting threatened the entire American financial system. 

Now remember: the DEFICIT is the gap between what the Federal Gov't collects in revenues and what it plans to spend that year.  Let's look at the deficits from 2006 to 2012 and see how they grew: 

2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget 

Revenue: $2.42 trillion

Spending: $2.66 trillion

Deficit of: $248 billion

2007: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget 

Revenue: $2.57 trillion

Spending:  $2.73 trillion

Deficit of:  $161 billion

2008: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

Revenue: $2.7 trillion

Spending: $2.9 trillion

Deficit of: $454 billion

Note something interesting: the leap of almost $300 billion in the deficit is NOT due to the 2007 recession yet.  Note that revenue actually CLIMBED from 2007-2008. So the recession can't be blamed for this single year $293 billion jump in the gap. 

2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Revenue: $2.105 trillion  

Spending: $3.518 trillion

Deficit of: $1.413 trillion

Two things happened this year: The financial drop in revenues collected finally hit, with revenues plunging from $2.7 trillion down to $2.1, a drop of over $600 billion.  But at the same time, Obama & the Democrats in Congress ramped up the spending with the stimulus bill, adding over $800 billion in new spending due to their confidence in Keynesian economics.  

So revenues dip by $600 billion + at the same time Washington increased spending. This is how you go from a deficit of $161 billion from just 2 years before to almost $1.5 trillion.  

2010: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Revenue: $2.165 trillion

Spending: $3.721 trillion

Deficit of: $1.267 trillion

Note an interesting thing here: Democrats sold the $800 billion + stimulus bill as a one-time thing that would help jump start the economy.  That's why Americans were asked to swallow an unprecedented trillion dollar deficit that year.  Well, it's next year.  What happened?  There WAS no second $800 billion in new stimulus, yet note the spending level went up anyway, from $3.518 trillion in 2009 to $3.721 trillion in 2010.  

2011: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
Revenue: $2.314 trillion
Spending: $3.630 trillion
Deficit of: $1.56 trillion 

NOW that you have a better grasp of just how we got here, we see that Sen. Tom Coburn's point was CORRECT.  The reason we are here right now facing a financial cliff is not because Washington hasn't been taking enough tax dollars from rich people in the private sector.  

It's because federal spending exploded from $1.9 trillion in 2001 to a staggering $3.8 trillion in 2011.  Even after the recession hit in 2007 and caused revenues to drop dramatically, all Washington did was floor the spending pedal anyway.

I don't know about you, but I thought the Federal Gov't was already pretty fricken' HUGE in 2001.  It now costs 2x as much to keep it afloat than just 11 years ago.  

There is NO WAY this is a revenue problem if you are growing government at this rate.  

Make no mistake, no matter what you hear from people like Michael Moore and others on the Far Left: this didn't happen because greedy rich people weren't being taxed enough from 2001-2011.  These huge deficits erupted because politicians in Washington were incredibly irresponsible.  

And now these same people are trying to deflect any accountability for what they've done for ballooning the Washington Leviathan to 2X it's former size in just over a decade by demagoguery, assuring all who will listen that the reason we face a financial crisis is because of 'inequality' and people not 'paying their fair share'.  

This class warfare stupidity must STOP. Responsibility for the mess we are in must be placed SQUARELY where it belongs: on those in power in Washington.  Every time they try to hide behind a bunch of rich Americans and deflect attention from what they've done, we need to put the accountability right back on them.  

Now Pay Attention Folks:

THIS Is How You Troll

A Troll

Especially When That Trolls Name Is

HARRY REID

As somebody who's been on the Internet since around 1995, I've seen every troll trick in the book.  Many of of my readers will no doubt be familiar with some of them:

1. The ad hominem: "You are a bad, baaaaad person for disagreeing with my political views."  Goal: get you on the defensive.  They call you a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, a hater of the poor, drowner of of kittens in your toilet or whatever, and you are supposed to start wasting your time attempting to prove to this person that you are NOT in fact a bad person because you disagree with their political views.


Remedy: Ignore it. Act like they didn't even say it.  Keep to the point and keep talking about what you were talking about.  You are NEVER going to win a game of "So when DID you stop beating your wife, eh?" with somebody on the internet or anywhere else.

2.  Subject change: "You made a good point there but rather than respond I'll simply change the subject and get off this current topic because this is not a give-and-take debate it's about how smart & I am and how stupid you are."  Goal: By changing the subject they catch you flat-footed, interrupt the flow of the conversation and short-circuit any attempts to build a case.  If you are attempting to make an argument with multiple points, they will keep changing the subject to avoid letting you get anywhere.


Remedy: Force them to stick to the subject or end the conversation.

3.  Strawman/Motives: "I will now take the argument you made and refashion it into a strawman that I'll then easily knock down while at the same time claiming the only reason you are not agreeing with my political views is because your motives are evil."   Goal: To never have to actually deal with what was said & to get the other person on the defensive by ascribing their desire to communicate to racism, sexism, homophobia or some other bad, evil motive.


Remedy: Take their strawman and refashion it back into the argument you were actually making until they do 1 of 2 things:


1. Respond to the actual point you were making or
2. Give up.


A few days ago Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid {D-Nev} decided to try to get the media to put intense pressure on Presidential candidate Mitt Romney by trying one of the oldest troll tricks in the book.

4.  Burden of Proof: "I will now make this outrageous accusation against you without proffering any proof whatsoever and since you bear the burden of proving my outrageous accusation is not true, you'd better get busy trying to defend yourself to me."   Goal: Sort of similar to troll trick #1, they want to get you on the defensive, but the additional trick here is they want you to expend time and energy doing research and proffering EVIDENCE to them, links, webpages, books, articles, even private info, so you can 'prove' to them that their claim is not true.


Remedy: Remind them it's THEIR claim and so the burden of proof lies squarely on them.


The burden of proof trick is nothing more than a PC show trial maneuver.  They sit you in front of them, launch an absurd accusation at you with no proof & then demand you demonstrate to them you are innocent.  YOU'RE the one that's supposed to run around frantically finding evidence to acquit yourself while they sit there and laugh at you.


Because most of the time they aren't arguing facts but MOTIVE this is of course IMPOSSIBLE to do.  Which is the point.  THEY KNOW IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. That's why they can't lose if you fall for their goading you into playing this game.


"Oh you don't support President Obama? Prove to me you are not a racist."
"Oh you don't support the HHS contraception mandate? Prove to me you don't hate women."
"Oh you support Walker in Wisconsin? Prove to me you don't hate working families." 

"Oh so when DID you stop beating your wife?"  


Now at the time Reid first made this allegation at the Huffington Post, he came right out and said:


1. He had heard this from a source he would not name, and
2. He had no evidence if what the source was telling him was true.


And yet what has Reid claimed for 3 straight days now?  He's claimed that MITT ROMNEY bears the burden of proof here, and the only way Mitt can prove he's innocent is to release more of those tax returns.


For decades Conservatives have watched Democrats and their Media shills play this game.  They make the accusation and boldly admit they have no proof but the ALLEGATIONS ARE SO SERIOUS there needs to be an investigation!  The target must prove his/her innocence! Why has the target not produced evidence of their innocence yet, if in fact they are innocent?!  Why does the target keep denying the allegations? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!!!??, etc. etc.


Within hours of Harry Reid making this desperate, foolhardy gambit in an attempt to pry more tax records out of Mitt Romney, the New Media was in full pushback.


First to fire a shot across Reids' bow was David Burge, @iowahawkblog.  Now pay attention: THIS is how you troll a troll using the 'Burden of Proof' trick: You turn it around on them and make your OWN baseless accusations with no evidence whatsoever and demand they prove their innocence.  And the longer they fail to supply you with such proof why, the SERIOUSNESS OF YOUR ACCUSATION ONLY INCREASES.


Note: because this is IowaHawk's twitter feed screen grabbed, you have to start at the bottom and read your way upwards:

Another blogger active on Twitter, @aceofspadesHQ also began rhetorically bitch-slapping Reid for his troll attack on Romney:

Then David Axelrod took it upon himself to tweet THIS:

Yes, it is a lame attempt to get the 'burden of proof' troll attack back on track by trying to convince people that Romney has the burden of proof here.  

Note the reply Axelrod got from me.  

@DrewMTips , a blogger at Ace of Spades HQ,  then took it upon himself to e-mail Reid's office about these swirling rumors of pederasty:


http://minx.cc/?post=331602

We could call this the Reid Standard of Proof: I make an allegation you've committed a felony with no proof and it's your job to prove your innocence.  But for some strange reason when you boomerang this back on the clowns trying  this, all of a sudden they think you're being 'cute' and nobody should take you seriously.


Reid's tactic here is so odious even Jon Stewart had to go after him.  Not just on the absurd tax accusation but also for claiming George Romney would be 'ashamed' of his son.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-1-2012/you--harry-reid--are-terrible


As Ann Coulter pointed out in her recent column, grabbing ahold of documents and then spinning them to damage opponents is Obama's whole modus operandi:


http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-01.html#read_more


Democrats have now gone all-in on trying to force Romney into handing over more tax returns so they can pick through them for something to attack him with.


Given that Move-On.org rolled out a political ad the other day still shilling for the now totally debunked 'OMFG, Romneys got a $77,000 tax deduction for dancing horse!!11!!!', it doesn't stretch the imagination to see what kind of fun they'll have with any documents Mitt can be intimidated into handing over.


The IRS is perfectly fine with Mitt's tax returns.  If he committed a felony they would already know about it.  They don't need Harry Reid flinging absurd accusations in public to do their job.


It's just turned August and this is the kind desperate, stupid BS the Democrats are forced into as they watch Black Jesus slowly sink 'neath the waves.

Media Polls Already Skewing
To An ABSURD Degree
To Keep Obama Afloat &
It's Only AUGUST! 

Anybody remember this post from back in May when I called out the Associated Press for putting out an especially skewed poll?

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2012/05/associated-press-is-up-to-its-old.html

Yeah.  Well turns out not only was I right, I was even more right than I knew.


But I.......even I..........cynical long-time political observer that I am, did not expect this.


Today Pew Research - which styles itself as an above-the-fray non-partisan polling organization - released a poll with a +19 pt advantage to Democrats in the sample.


That's right.  Pew released this thing with a straight face.  Totally serious about it.

http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/08/8-2-12-Detailed-Tables.pdf

That breaks down to a D/R/I of 43%-24%-32%, which is utterly and completely without excuse.  Pew couldn't even try to defend this.  But it's OK because nobody in the MSM will point it out, so Pew won't have to.

As Ace at Ace of Spades said on this: 

http://minx.cc/?post=331580 

I'm sure if Rasmussen pushed a poll showing an R+10 electorate, the lulz would never cease. Pew? Total silence.

That's right. Pew can put out a poll claiming a D+19 electorate & they know no one in the MSM will call them out on it.


In case anybody forgot what the electorate actually looked like the past few election cycles:

As I said back in May:

So - quick recap.  Democrat's Party ID advantage: 

2008: +8

2009: +6 

2010: +2 

2011: +4

So the AP expects people to believe that the Democrat Party advantage has surged to over double what it was last year to +9 or more?  

Laughable.  Note as you read the end of the PDF the AP mentions they also weighted their sample but does not say HOW or in which direction.  How much did they swing the weighting of the sample to get a +9 Dem advantage & how much did that affect the +8 lead the poll gives Obama over Romney?

To get an accurate poll they need a sample that mirrors the current electorate, which would give Dem's a +4 Party ID advantage at best.  Instead they more than double that to an absurd +9.  

To get Obama above the 3.9 MOE, they have to resort to this?  Can't wait to see how big the skewing of the sample gets the next few months.  

And now we know! D+19! I can't wait to see which MSM polling org. is the FIRST to cross the D+20 line! Who will it be? Will it be CBS? NBC? CNN? The AP?


They attempt to create public perception with these polls, but all they REALLY end up doing is fooling their own Lefty base.  The simpletons out there will just look at the headlines and go "Oh hey, Obama's got this in the bag. 10 points up! Awesome!"


This is why the idiots in the Progressive base always walk around stunned after they lose an election, blubbering "B-b-but the POLLS!!!!???"


They fall for this Kabuki Theater all the time.  This is how they can scream the election must have stolen because..................the polls! 


If Pew had to massage this thing to D+19 to get Obama to a 10 pt lead over Romney, you know in a fair weighting he's down at least 6-7 pts.  Obama is underwater and sinking fast, so we can expect MSM organizations like Pew to totally shred whatever credibility they had left to try to drag his ass over the finish line.