Liberals are out in force today whining about the latest debt plan. The left is very upset that they weren’t able to pilfer more money from the American taxpayer to pay for their broken programs.
Paul Krugman announced: “The President Surrenders”
And, Peter Beinart whined about the tea party and then goes on to discuss the success of Obama’s “reasonably successful” first two years.
Talk about crazy – This was nuts.
While the details of the debt ceiling deal remain fuzzy, this much is clear: Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington. How did this happen? Simple; this is what American politics looks like when there’s no left-wing movement and no war.
Let’s start with the first point. Liberals are furious that President Obama agreed to massive spending cuts, and the promise of more, without any increase in revenues. They should be: Given how much the Bush tax cuts have contributed to the deficit (and how little they’ve spurred economic growth), it’s mind-boggling that they’ve apparently escaped this deficit-reduction deal unscathed.
But there’s a reason for that: since the economy collapsed in 2008, only one grassroots movement has emerged in response, and it’s been a movement of the right. Compare that with what happened during the Depression. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt assumed the presidency and launched the hodgepodge of domestic programs that historians call the first New Deal. By 1935, however, he was looking warily over his left shoulder at Huey Long, whose “Share our Wealth” movement demanded that incomes be capped at $1 million and every family be guaranteed an income no less than one-third the national average.
At the same time, the Townsend plan to guarantee generous pensions to every elderly American had organizers in every state in the union. To be sure, FDR had vehement opponents on his right, but he was at least as concerned about the populist left, which helps explain why he enacted the more ambitious “second new deal,” which included Social Security, the massive public jobs program called the Works Progress Administration and the Wagner Act, which for the first time in American history put Washington on the side of labor unions.
Obama, like FDR, had a reasonably successful first two years: a stimulus package that while too small for the circumstances was still large by historical standards and a health care bill that while subpar in myriad ways still far exceeded the efforts of other recent Democratic presidents.
First of all, no matter how hard the media tries to rewrite history they can’t hide the fact that the Bush tax cuts were a tremendous success. During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the 9-11 attacks, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop.
In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. Bush did this with tax cuts.
And as far as those “resonably successful” first two years…
Obama triple the national deficit in a year.
(The Captain’s Comments)
Obama spearheaded a failed trillion dollar stimulus project. He’s the worst jobs president since the Great Depression. The GDP is sinking like a stone in water. And, thanks to his failed leadership, his party lost in the biggest landslide election in 60 years.
That’s what a leftist calls “reasonably successful.”
The far left is just crying because they have no answers to the current economic challenges. Keynesian economics have failed and the American public is no longer willing to allow these crooks to continue their binge spending.
They are out of ideas… And they are furious.