With the help of the media, the Repubs are totally revising history...

[kentuck]

Everything bad that happens is Barack Obama and the Democrats' fault.

Never mind that they could not have done more damage to our country even if they tried. Now they want to put all the sacrifice on those that can least afford it. And they do not want to take any of the blame for the damage they did.

Consider 9/11. Who was in charge when the terrorists hit the World Trade Center? It was George W Bush and the Republicans. Let us not forget that.

Who was in charge when they rammed thru a taxcut for the wealthy that they did not even ask for? A taxcut that put us into debt by over $5 trillion dollars. A taxcut that they still do not want to let expire. They would prefer to make cuts in anything and everything rather than to pass a tax increase that goes against their radical ideology.

Boy, can they lie! They convince enough of their simple-minded followers that Obama is a "socialist" and a "big spender" and we cannot afford this huge debt Obama is putting on our backs. Unless you were born last night, you are a frigging moron to believe such crap. But morons are plentiful in this Republican Party. They are ignorant and ignorance will destroy us all.

God forbid that the "liberal media" tell the truth about these radical ideologues. If they tried, the Republican propaganda machine would dispute every fact. They would create their own revisionist history, and in fact, that is what FOX News and others have done.

Republicans do not listen to the other side and they do not look at history or the facts. They live day to day in their ideological world, listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, and are oblivious to our country crashing down around us.

We have entered an era of insanity. Nothing good will come from it. There are no solutions except pain and suffering. Even then, the reality will be divided by partisan politics. I am not optimistic about our future so long as this media is covering for these radicals.

[liberal N proud]

1. They said they wanted to take the country back

They didn't specify how far.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Don't forget that the last Bush budget came in with a $1.2 Trillion deficit.

http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110228/OPINION03/102280337/Bush-administration-s-final-budget-deficit-1-2-trillion


The George W. Bush Administration's final budget deficit was $1.2 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the projected 2009 deficit, issued before Obama took office, was $1.2 trillion. People with their own agenda like to say that that budget was Obama's because he took office that year. But the budget was set in October 2008, months before Obama took office. Yes, President Obama inherited a growing budget deficit.

Edited to add link

[kentuck]

3. They have already forgotten that.

That is a part of revisionist history already.

[Southerner]

4. I don't see it.

You provided a link to an opinion article which in turn, provides no link to back up what it says.

Try typing into google the search words "bush proposed budget 2009". You will get 50 articles which state his projected budget deficit for 2009 was going to be $400 billion. It was never projected to be the $1.2 trillion it actually became during Obama's first year in office.

Sorry, I've been through this many times with my annoying Tea Bagger coworker and I keep losing the argument. We spent too much and I think we'll lose the Senate and White House next year if we don't get serious about the budget.

[kentuck]

5. Obama's first year was Bush's budget.

That included the $700 billion bailout for the banks. Obama's deficits are the last two years amount to just over 3 trillion dollars. But, unlike Bush, he did not start with a $260 billion dollars surplus - he started with a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit. Can you see the difference? It's difficult to go straight to a balanced budget from a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit and a worldwide collapse of the economy? Do you remember any of that? Or perhaps you remember it differently??

[Southerner]

6. Still don't see it.

Look here:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2009_0.html#usgs30280

No mention of bank bailouts. That was a seperate bill passed by Congress outside of the budget. I think we basically used the Federal Reserve to print money to cover that.

Adding this link in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Here seems to be the story:

Bush proposed $3.1 trillion in spending assuming there would be $2.7 trillion in revenue.

The actual for 2009 turned out to be $3.5 trillion in spending with only $2.1 trillion in revenue.

The economy tanked and at the same time, we increased spending by $400 billion beyond the Bush budget.

None of this matters though. The story is too complicated to put in nice sound bites for consumption by the average voter in 2012.