Truth Needs to Be Shared

It's always nice to hear the truth told in a comedic way -

Well, perhaps Obama is running that line of crap, but I'm not - and never have been. But let's look at what's being "identified" by the CBO:

The bulk of the swing resulted from economic and technical revisions (33%) [We lied and the economy was being pumped with excessive debt], other new spending (32%) [Medicare Part D anyone?], net interest on the debt (12%) [What, you mean I have to pay that credit card?!], the 2009 stimulus (6%) and other tax cuts (3%). Specifically, the tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 are responsible for just 4% of the swing. If there were no Bush tax cuts, runaway spending and economic factors would have guaranteed more than $4 trillion in deficits over the decade and kept the budget in deficit every year except 2007.

Right. But notice the above. And notice who was responsible for all of it. Who signed Medicare Part D again? Who pumped credit following 9/11? Who directed his DOJ to interfere with state regulation of predatory lending - that is, knowingly fraudulent credit creation?

The Democrats might get the "cause" wrong but they sure as hell didn't misidentify the responsible jackass. His name was George W. Bush and he was (up until Obama took office!) the undisputed KING of Ponzi Economics in the history of America.

Not that this should surprise. You might want to look into what sort of businessman he was before he came to the White House. Being one of his "investors" would have been great - if you liked turning large fortunes into small ones.

The Real Effect
Any long time reader can view my multiple positions on George W. Bush here and here and here and here and...well, you get the point.

Conservative is defined not by people lumped in a group but by a person's intellectual position on a given subject. Simply claiming you are "conservative" and then spending money like a drunken sailor does not do the job. It is the job of the faux conservative groups to convince us how indiscriminate spending namely on unfunded liabilities is a good idea or even remotely conservative.

Take the matter of the national debt -

While it is true that Obama has significantly increased spending. At the time, so had George "conservative" Bush. So it follows that if one is opposed to "reckless" spending under Obama, likewise one must also be just as opposed to spending by George Bush. (Let's keep in mind though that it is Congress that actually does the spending, albeit the President does have a veto pen.)

Let's keep this in mind when going to the voting booth in November shall we?